Full text of "Boston transportation planning review : final study, summary report"

See other formats

Government Documents

NOV 19 19/3
University cf Massachusetts

BOSTON TRANSPORTATION PLANNING REVIEW

FINAL STUDY
SUMMARY REPORT

FEBRUARY 1973

The Boston Transportation Planning Review
is a study undertaken for the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts, sponsored by the Executive
Office of Transportation and Construction
through the Department of Public Works (DPW)
and the Massachusetts Bay Transportation
Authority (MBTA) .

State support is contributed by the DPW and
the MBTA. This report has been prepared in
cooperation with the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.
The preparation of this report has also been
financed in part through a grant from the
U.S. Department of Transportation, Urban
Mass Transportation Administration, under
the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 ,
as amended.

The best description of the Boston Transportation Planning Review can be found
in the policy statements made by Governor Sargent with respect to transportation
in the Boston region. The context of each of these statements, made at various
stages of the BTPR, is on the following pages.

In addition, this report summarizes the technical reports and memoranda produced
during the course of the BTPR. Contents of the following published reports are
included:

Core

• Third Harbor Crossing Report

• Harbor Crossing Summary

• Central Artery

• Circumferential Transit

North Shore

• North Shore Report (1-95 North and 1-95 Relocated)

• 1-95 Relocated Summary

• The Salem-Peabody Route 128 Arterial Connector

• The Winthrop Connector

Northwest

• Northwest Corridor Report

• Northwest Arterial Report

• Mobility Problems of Elderly Cambridge Residents

Southwest

• Southwest Corridor Report

• Southwest Summary

• Southwest Corridor: Supplementary Report

Regional

• Air Quality Monitoring Program

• Commuter Rail Improvement Program

• Goods Movement Study

• Regional Framework

• Regional Systems

• A Review of Recommended High Speed Ground
and Air Transportation Options

• Social Benefit/Cost Evaluation

• Study Element 6 Summary Report: Land Use
and Travel Forecasting

• Study Element 2 Summary Report: Community Liaison
and Technical Assistance

Other technical reports and memoranda produced by the BTPR are listed by the
following categories:

Study Element

02 Community Liaison and Technical Assistance

03 Design and Evaluation Criteria

04 Transportation System Design

05 Joint Development

06 Land Use and Travel Forecasting

07 Special Mobility Studies

08 Technological Studies

09 Legal and Administrative Studies

10 Environment and Conservation Studies

11 Effects on Regional Economy

12 Replacement Housing and Family Relocation

13 Business Relocation and Employment

Facility

10 North Shore General Studies

11 Regional Studies

12 No-Build

13 1-95 North — Lynn/Peabody

14 1-95 North — Route 1

15 1-95 Relocated

16 Third Harbor Crossing

17 I-93/I-95 Connector
19 Revere Beach Parkway

23 North Shore Special Mobility/Coverage Transit

Digitized by the Internet Archive

in 2014

https://archive.org/details/bostontransportaOO

9,4

Airpor t

Southwest Expressway

> — J v — i (_x \ — 1 1 1 — . d o I IjA W _L o O W CL y

Western Inner Belt

Mi H 1 ^n^Q ci'n(:ir,"i^i1 PnrnnQP Rri^rl

w N— / U LHW w O 1 ILL (— v_ J_ _L Q -L

Orange Line Relocated

Ci reunite rpn t i a 1

* — XI. U IX1LL X_ * — ■ X. — 1 X i L CX J_

Southwest Commuter Railroad

Grand Junrtinn TthpTcwsv

Western Connector

Harvard/Alewif e Extension

Green Line Extension

Northwp s 1" Commi i re r Rsi 1

i- * X- Uilf *3 O ' — \ Ul I U 1 1 LX I — X. X\. Cx X- x_

Northwest Special Mobility/Coverage Transit

Central Artery

Southwest General Studies

Northwest General Studies

A list of handouts at Working Committee Meetings and a list of Working
Committee Meeting Minutes is also included in this report. These documents
can be found only in the files at the Massachusetts Department of Public
Works .

GOVERNOR FRANCIS W. SARGENT
POLICY STATEMENT ON TRANSPORTATION IN THE BOSTON REGION

FEBRUARY 11, 1970

I have asked to speak to you tonight to report one of the most far-reaching
and significant decisions I have made during my term as Governor.

I have decided to reverse the transportation policy of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts .

The decision has immediate effect on the metropolitan Boston area, long-
range effect on the state as a whole, and, it is my hope, major effect on
the entire nation.

Last May, I announced a reappraisal of this state's policy on transportation.
I asked a special Task Force to conduct that reappraisal and to answer cer-
tain questions. Here are the questions — and the answers.

Are we really meeting our transportation needs by spending most of our money
building roads? The answer is no.

Are the roads we are building too costly — not merely in dollars, but in
what they cost us in demolished homes, disrupted communities, dislocated
lives, pollution of the air, damage to our environment? The answer is
yes — they are too costly.

The most important question is this: what should we do?

I am here tonight to answer that question — clearly, plainly, and without
doubletalk, for there has been enough of that.

My answer takes the form of local, state, and national decisions.

First, metropolitan Boston. Today construction is planned for several contro-
versial transportation facilities — all of them highways. Extension of
Route 2, the Inner Belt, the Southwest Expressway, and Interstate 93 through
Charlestown and Somerville.

First, Route 2 and the Inner Belt. Pending today is a five and a half million
dollar study of this project. It is called the Task B study and it is
scheduled to take 18 months to fix the route of this highway.

I have decided not to approve it. It is too expensive. It would take too
long — and most important, it would consider only where and how to build
expressways, not whether to build them at all.

And that last point is the critical question — whether to build them at all.

Instead of the Task B study, I have decided on a new approach. I call it
the Balanced Transportation Development Program and I will ask approval of
it from the United States Department of Transportation.

This program will cost not five and a half, but three and a half million
dollars, 90% of which will be federal money. It will operate for 12 months
instead of 18. And, most important, its considerations will be far more
relevant to our real needs than the Task B study would have been.

This new program will be a first in the nation.

For the first time a metropolitan transportation plan will be developed that
is free of outdated ideas and obsolete myths.

The plan will be based on an answer to the questions I called critical a
moment ago — not where an expressway should be built, but whether an express-
way should be built. It will integrate road-building with mass transit —
and it will study some of these other, imaginative means of moving goods and
people: park and ride system, metered traffic on expressways, special bus
lanes, and the host of other space-age approaches now available to the trans-
portation planners.

We must plan for tomorrow, not for yesterday.

My new Balanced Transportation Development Program will also embrace the
Southwest Expressway Corridor. The state now owns three-quarters of the
land in that Corridor. We are committed to use of that Corridor. Plans now
call for highway construction there — massive highway construction: an
eight-lane highway, plus four extra breakdown lanes.

The old plan does call for rapid transit in this Corridor. But it does not
consider its proper integration, or other innovative transportation alter-
natives now available to us. And it emphatically does not consider the impact
on the environment — on housing, on land-use, on people.

I have decided that it must.

My new program will be broad in scope and will consider all aspects of deve-
lopment of a transportation system in the Corridor, for, I repeat, a transpor-
tation line must be constructed there.

And, it may well be that a highway will be part of that system.

But before we go further, let us know certainly where we are going, how we
are going.

One important footnote. While we consider a new plan for use of the Southwest
Corridor, Boston faces a major housing shortage. Today, there are 475 livable
housing units standing in the Corridor.

I have ordered a halt to their demolition.

The houses and industries not yet acquired by the Commonwealth will not be
acquired, unless their owners ask that they be, or unsafe conditions demand
that they be.

Those housing units unfit for habitation in the Corridor will be demolished
immediately .

I turn now to Route 93. There are those who say all highway construction
within Route 128 should stop. They clamor for what they call a moratorium,
and they include Route 93 in this unrealistic idea. The result of their
proposals would be not a moratorium on construction, but a moratorium on
movement within the Route 128 area. I cannot agree to so irresponsible a
plan .

I have decided to order the immediate completion of Route 93 from its present
terminus in Medford to the proposed link with the Central Artery. That pro-
ject makes sense. It shall go forward.

It should be clear by now that the Balanced Transportation Development Program
I announce tonight is a totally new concept, not only for Massachusetts, but
for the nation.

I envision this program altering the nation's transportation thinking for
decades to come. It will affect San Francisco and Atlanta as well as Spring-
field and New Bedford, Worcester and Fall River, Lowell and Lawrence.

Every state, Massachusetts included, is afflicted today by a national trans-
portation policy that is out of date, out of touch with today's realities.

Federal aid to states for transportation today consists mainly of money for
highways — ninety cents on every dollar spent by a state.

But most metropolitan areas need rapid transit systems and federal money for
them is skimpy. In the Boston area, as an example, 79 cities and towns must
use tax dollars to finance MBTA growth — and that burden is increasing to
unbearable levels.

Further, major federal money for highways, but only minor federal money for
mass transit denies cities and towns the right to choose what kind of trans-
portation is best for them. They are left with either building highways or
building nothing.

I have decided to do something about that. I will attempt to change national
transportation policy. I will go to the Congress with these plans to amend
federal law.

First, that the Federal Highway Act of 1970 permit states to use interstate
Highway Funds for mass transit systems of all kinds, not just highways.

Second, that that same act permit use of such funds for building and improving
arterial streets in cities, not just for expressways.

Third, that that same act permit use of such funds to build houses replacing
those demolished for transportation construction. We have in Massachusetts
today a good plan for relocating families dispossessed by highway construc-
tion: We compensate some. We underwrite rents for others. We protect
individuals. But we don't meet community housing needs generally. Last year,
Boston built only 109 low income housing units, only 1200 moderate income
housing units. Yet the present Southwest Expressway plan would wipe out a
thousand units — with no plan to replace them, no funds to finance a plan.

That doesn't make sense.

And so, I will appeal to Congress. And I will propose an amendment to our
own state constitution to permit broader use of our own highway money.

Proposals, of course, are not enough. They must be backed by action.

I shall go to Washington to work for these plans. I shall ask the help of
our Congressmen, the help of our Mayors of major American cities, the help
of Governors in states with major urban areas.

I shall ask the help of the President of the United States.

Most of all, I shall ask and I shall need your help.

Four years ago, I was the Commissioner of the Department of Public Works —
our road building agency. Then, nearly everyone was sure highways were the
only answer to transportation problems for years to come.

We were wrong.

Today we know more clearly what our real needs are — what our environment
means to us — what a community means to us — what is valuable to us as a
people .

Today I know, as Governor of this state, that the errors of the past will cost
us dearly if we do not correct them immediately.

We must move quickly.

I mean to do so. Thank you.

GOVERNOR FRANCIS W. SARGENT

POLICY STATEMENT ON TRANSPORTATION IN THE BOSTON REGION

December 29, 1971

Governor Francis W. Sargent announced today that Phase I of
v the Boston Transportation Planning Review has been completed.
The following is a text of the Governor's comments upon the conclusion
of Phase I of the Study:

Phase I of the Boston Transportation Planning Review has
been completed, successfully and on time. It has demonstrated
that plans developed in the 1940' s and 1950' s are inappropriate
for the 1970' s and 1980 • s. Specifically, based on the Planning
Review recommendations, I have concluded: (1) that all of the
old expressway plans for the region within Route 128 require, at
the very least, major modification; (2) that there are many new
and exciting alternatives which have not previously been
seriously considered; and (3) that open planning, in close
consultation with local officials and interested private groups,
can work.

The time is not yet ripe to say whether any of the proposed
expressways within Route 128 will be built, and if so, which ones*
Phase I was never intended to produce the answer to this question.
It has rather had two objectives: first, to analyze the pros and
cons of the old plans in systematic fashion; and second, to develop
a wide range of possible alternatives to these previous plans,
in close consultation with interested groups and officials.

Phase I, then, has been a period of creativity, of increasing
the number of alternatives available for consideration. Now, as
we move into Phase II, it is time to begin reducing the number of
alternatives. This is necessary in order to permit detailed
development and analysis of those alternatives that remain in the
coming months, in preparation for the final decisions that I have
* pledged myself to make during the spring and summer of 1972.

In narrowing down the options for those final decisions, I
have today reached the following conclusions:

1. The eight-lane scale for expressways within Route 128

is clearly excessive, both because of environmental disruption and
traffic impact on downtown Boston. The construction of such express-
ways would overwhelm the already crowded city streets in the vicinity
of core area interchanges. Thus the maximum scale facilities to
be considered during phase II will be four conventional highway
lanes plus two lanes for buses, emergency vehicles (such as ambulance
and fire engines), and at times other special purpose vehicles
(minibuses, taxis, trucks, car pools, etc.).

2. An effort to accommodate all potential demand by commuters
for highway capacity into downtown Boston would be outrageously
expensive, in terms of highway investment dollars, increased transit
deficits, social disruption, and environmental degradation. Such

a policy would also require the construction of many thousands of
additional parking spaces in the core, at an average cost that
might exceed $5,000 per space, not to mention the associated local
street improvements that would be necessary.

3. Thus, our policy must be to encourage those who work in

the Boston core to commute by transit. At the same time, we recogniz
that there is a great deal of travel demand by people who work outsid
the core or who come to the core at times other than peak commuting
periods (truckers, tourists, shoppers, etc.). A central question
that must be resolved in Phase II is: how much of this non-
commutation demand for highway space can be accommodated at acceptabl
social, economic, and environmental cost.

4. Implementation of this policy will require an intensive
effort to improve our public transportation system. It must take
on a bigger share of the job. It will need facilities, services,
and funds to do that job. We will look to the Planning Review,
working closely with the M.B.T.A., to develop better means of
getting around in downtown, and of serving areas tha t are not
adequately served at present. The Planning Review has proposed
circumferential transit, that would link a number of our educational
* arid medical institutions. It has also proposed new transit services
to improve mobility for inner city neighborhoods. I am asking
that these proposals for new patterns of transit service be given
in depth study during the next few months, along with facilities
such as fringe parking lots that would encourage a greater number
of core-oriented travelers to go by transit.

These conclusions have led me to drop from consideration the
following highway alternatives:

1. Any expressway facilities greater in scale than four
conventional highway lanes plus two lanes for buses and other
special purpose vehicles. Thus the previously planned eight-lane
facilities for the Southwest Expressway, 1-95. North, the Inner Belt,
and Route 2 extension will no longer be considered.

2 • All previous plans for the Inner Belt through Cambridge
and Somerville. The much-discussed Brookline-Elm and Portland-
Albany Street alignments .are now officially dead. I hope that the
families, churches and businesses that have lived with this threat
for so many years will now feel able to plan for the future with a
sense of security. Federal relocation requirements make it impossible
to construct these routes. Therefore the Commonwealth will be
seeking compensation in the form of equivalent dollars for highway
investment elsewhere in the state, recognizing that it was impossible
to construct this route in accord with Federal relocation procedures.

While dropping the Inner Belt as previously conceived, let me
note that the possibility of a two or four lane facility, primarily
or exclusively for trucks and buses, connecting the Turnpike and
Route 1-93, using the Grand Junction railroad right-of-way, will
continue to receive consideration in Phase II. This facility, if
constructed, might well be designated 1-695. It would be very
different from the old Inner Belt, however, most notably in that
its primary purpose would be to take truck traffic off the residential

streets of Cambridge, and that it would require virtually no dis-
location of homes or businesses.

3 • The previously proposed alignment for a Third Harbor
Crossing. This alignment passed through East Boston and would have
caused very substantial business and residential dislocation.
% East Boston has already paid an excessive price for the convenience
of motorists and air travelers. Moreover, the alignment in question
involved an airport interchange very close to the existing tunnel
entrances. Such an interchange location could produce airport and
tunnel traffic tieups far beyond anything seen to date.

Thus, the Third Harbor Crossing alignments carried forward
for Phase II consideration all pass through Logan Airport property
to the east of the previously proposed alignment. They would re-
quire no taking of homes in East Boston. An expressway on one of
these alignments might relieve congestion in the existing tunnels
and on East Boston streets. It could facilitate bus, taxi, and
automobile access to Logan Airport. It could relieve Central
Artery congestion. And it could open up South Boston for exciting
new development. Such a road might, however, cost upwards of half
a billion dollars. We have a good deal still to learn about its
possible social and environmental cost, as well as its transportation
benefits. Thus, it is premature to judge whether it merits
construction at this time. But it will be studied in Phase II.

4. The previously proposed alignment for 1-95 (Relocated)
through Revere to Cutler Circle. This would have been extremely
disruptive to homes. and businesses in Revere. The Planning Review
has proposed studying a number of alignments that would create
significantly less disruption. They would all be primarily on
existing highway or railroad corridors. All of these will be
studied in Phase II.

5. The South End Bypass. This was a project of the

City of Boston, abandoned by the City. It was never a state project.
As a general purpose roadway, I consider it a dead proposal. Some
transit options in the existing railroad alignment, however, should
be studied in Phase IP, including the possibility of a busway.

6. Certain recent proposals for major arterial and
parkway routes within Route 128. These alternatives would have
involved modifications to Hammond Pond Parkway and Turtle Pond
Parkway in Newton, Brookline and Boston; to Alewife Brook Parkway
and Mystic Valley Parkway in Somerville and Med ford; and/or to
College Avenue and Harvard Street in Somerville and Medford. These
, investments would have produced quite modest transportation benefits
at high cost in terms of environmental and business disruption,
not to mention highway investment dollars (non-Interstate) that
might be put to far better use elsewhere in the Commonwealth.
These proposals will not be considered further.

I have listed these items that will not be studied further
in order to clear the air and let the Planning Review get on with
more detailed work comparing a number of more feasible alternatives.

Permit me to conclude with a few words about the options
that remain, and the general thrust of this Administration's
transportation policy.

First, let me emphasize that, in dropping certain expressway
alternatives at this time, I am not deemphasizing the needs of the
regional economy. No one is more cognizant than I of the need for
economic development and for jobs. At the same time, I think that
we have to reevaluate a good many old shibboleths about the means
to achieve prosperity. I do not think that the best path to
prosperity is one which radically overloads the street system of
the downtown core. I do think that concern about the environment
and the quality of life is highly compatible with a determination
to promote prosperity. I have called upon the Planning Review for
creative thinking about tie best ways to reconcile these objectives.
I think that its staff has been doing a grand job. And I would
call upon other public officials and private groups to join me in
taking a fresh look at our transportation problems in the light
of their findings.

The alternatives that will receive priority attention in
Phase II of the Planning Review fall into three broad categories:
transit options, expressway options at the 4-6 lane scale, and
means of handling motor vehicle traffic that do nov. involve the
construction of new expressways. All of these alternatives will
be studied in an integrated fashion, in order to present the
alternatives within a broad context of the economic, environmental,
and transportation needs of the Boston region.

With respect to the transit alternatives, it bears
emphasis that I have never questioned the desirability of the
major proposed transit extensions for the Boston region. The
Planning Review has dealt with them only insofar as their design
has required integration with the design of related road improve-
ments. Design is a broad term, of course, which includes in
several cases considerations of alignment and of choice among
* possible rapid transit technologies (for example, commuter rail,
electrified rail rapid transit, and exclusive busway). Though a
good many transit design issues remain open, I am assured that
no projects for which bonding authorization is available will be
delayed by the Planning Review.

With respect to the "no expressway" alternatives, the
Planning Review will consider what can be done to existing arteries
in order to improve safety, eliminate bottlenecks, and facilitate
local traffic and bus transit movement. I have also asked that the
Review prepare a full analysis of the consequences of foregoing
freeway construction. How severely would automobile traffic have
to be restricted? What transit investments would be required that
might not otherwise be needed? What would be the impact upon the
regional economy and the regional land use pattern? What would be
the consequences for the natural environment and the quality of
life in the Boston region? This analysis should be an important
part of Phase II.

A list of the facility alternatives that will be studied
in Phase II is attached, along with maps to indicate their possible
alignments.

The following major transportation facility alternatives will be
given priority consideration during Phase II by the BTPR.

In the Southwest Corridor
(Highways )

1. Either a four-lane expressway, or a six-lane expressway in which
two lanes are reserved for buses and other special purpose ve-
hicles. (The busway lanes, it should be noted, also constitute
a public transit alternative.)

These studies will include consideration of appropriately-scaled
connections, to the Massachusetts Turnpike and the Southeast
Expressway, along the present alignment of the Boston Inner
Belt. These studies will also include alternative alignments
in the Fowl Meadow area, including Readville and Route 138.

2. As an alternative to expressway construction in the Southwest
C6rridor, the development of separate new reversible lanes in
the Southeast Expressway Corridor, possibly at a second level.
If such lanes are constructed, at least one would be designed
for exclusive or controlled bus use during peak hours.

3. A route for trucks and, possibly , other special purpose ve-
hicles on the Midlands Division right-of-way of the Penn-
Central Railroad.

4. No new expressways — bottleneck relief, safety measures and
local arterial improvements only.

(Transit)

5. Orange line extension in the Penn Central right-of-way from
South Cove Tunnel to Forest Hills, with extensions to West
Roxbury and Needham, and to Route 128 in Canton. Right-of-
way will also be reserved for high speed ground transportation
between Boston and New York City. Options for improved commuter
rail service will also be investigated in this corridor.

6. Maintenance of existing Washington Elevated Rapid Transit, or
equivalent service, from Essex Station to Dudley or Egleston
Station. Extensions to Mattapan Center on Warren Avenue and
Blue Hill Avenue will also be investigated.

7. Use of the Midlands Division right-of-way of the Penn Central
Railroad from South Station to Mattapan for light-rail transit
service, or as an exclusive busway facility.

8. Use of either new technologies or conventional rapid transit
systems for an Inner City Circumferential transit loop, from
City Hospital and Columbia Point, to Back Bay educational and
health facilities, and connecting with a similar transit loop
alternative in the Cambridge portion of the Northwest Corridor.

9. Development of reserved bus lanes in the Southeast and South-
west Highway Corridors.

In the North Shore Sub-area
(Highways )

1. Either a four-lane expressway, or a six-lane expressway in
which two lanes are reserved for buses and other special pur-
pose vehicles. Both the originally proposed alignment for 1-95
through Lynn and Peabody, and the newly developed Route 1 align-
ments, remain in consideration at this time. Priority attention
will be given to the Route 1 alignment to determine whether it is
a feasible and prudent alternative, while work proceeds on im-
proved design through Lynn Woods. Sub-options of the Route 1
alternative include rebuilding within the existing right-of-
way as well as constructing a new, parallel facility.

2. 1-95 Relocated, extending from South Station through a Third
Harbor Crossing to a connection with either 1-95 or the Revere
Beach Parkway in the North. The scale of the roadway to be
considered is four lanes, or six lanes in which two lanes are
reserved for buses and special purpose vehicles. As noted
previously, the originally proposed alignment through heavily
residential areas of East Boston and Revere will be dropped
from further consideration. All Third Harbor Crossing altern-
atives carried into Phase II will pass through Logan Airport
property, to the east of the originally proposed alignment, and
would not require the taking of any homes in East Boston. 1-95
alternatives through Revere would follow either the Boston and
Maine right-of-way and the edge of Saugus Marsh, or a widened
Northeast Expressway and Revere Beach Parkway.

3. A four-lane expressway spur connecting Revere Beach and the
Pines River Blue Line rapid transit terminal with Cutler Circle,
and 1-95, if built.

4. Expressway and arterial improvement alternatives from the Salem/
Beverly area to Route 128, as alternatives to the presently

designed Connector to 1-95 North. The presently designed Con-
nector will also remain under consideration.

5. No new expressways — bottleneck relief, safety measures, and
local arterial improvements only.

(Transit)

6. Improved line-haul transit service between the North Shore and -
Boston. Options include upgrading existing commuter rail* service ,
or introducing new, dual-powered transit vehicles capable* of pvofr'
viding both suburban service and improved down town iift^^rlbut ion .
A full rapid transit extension on the No^th^*Shb?e will not be
considered for short-term imp 1 erne r^£*tion. ' "**

7. The integration of the Rlut^Line Rapid transit extension to
Pines River with feeder bus service^And* fringe parking
facilities.

8. Development of reserved bus lanes in conjunction with all 1-95
and Third Harbor Crossing alternatives as Well- as the Revere
Beach/Pines River connector. . *V '*i&^$tifrv s*

In the Northwest Sub-area
(Highways)

1. A two or four- lane route, primarily or exclusively for trucks,
following the Grand Junction Railroad right-of-way through
Cambridge" and Somerville, connecting the Massachusetts Turn-
pike with Route 1-93.

2. A four-lane route, through Cambridge and Watertown along the
Watertown Branch of the Boston and Maine Railroad, connecting
the present terminus of Route 2 at Dewey and Almy Circle to the
Massachusetts Turnpike,

3. A two- or four-lane route over the Boston and Maine Fitchburg
Division right-of-way from the terminus of Route 2 to several
possible terminations in Cambridge and Somerville. This route
might be an arterial connecting with several cross streets, or
it might be a special purpose expressway intended primarily or
exclusively for trucks and buses.

•1W.

No new expressways — bottleneck relief, safety measures, and
local arterial improvements only.

(Transit)

5. Rapid transit extension to the Alewife Brook area. First pri-
ority will be given to possible extensions of the Red Line from
Harvard Square, including a direct deep-bore tunnel, as well

as an alternative through Porter Square. The Green Line ex-
tension alternative along the Boston and Maine Fitchburg
Division right-of-way will also be retained in the event that
costs of the Red Line alternatives prove to be prohibitive.

6. Extension of the Green Line from Lechmere to West Medford along
the Boston and Maine New Hampshire Division right-of-way with a
possible connection to Alewife along the Boston and Maine freight
cut-off.

7. Continuation of commuter service to suburban areas, either through
improved commuter rail service, substitution of new "light rail"
or dual powered transit vehicles, substitution of express bus
service on existing expressways or new busway facilities, or
some combination of the above .

8. Development of a Circumferential Transit Loop in Cambridge and
Somerville to provide local access and distribution service.
This study will be coordinated with a connecting alternative in
the Southwest Corridor.

During Phase II, each transportation facility alternative will be
thoroughly analyzed in terms of direct and secondary social, en-
vironmental and economic effects, as outlined in the Study Design.
In addition to the above, BTPR Phase II studies will include the
following related analyses:

Local transit access and distribution needs in the Cambridge/
Somerville and Roxbury/South End/Jamaica Plain areas,

Needs and characteristics of goods movements in the greater
Boston area,

Transit operations improvements, including modif iciations of
routes and schedules and improvement of transfer procedures
and facilities,

Parking needs and policies,

Regional economic and environmental implications of alternative
transportation systems.

FACILITIES TO BE GIVEN PRIORITY CONSIDERATION DURING PHASE II - TRANSIT

Legend

■ wm mm mm m Rapid Transit Lines ■

■

■ ■■■■n Improved Commuter Rail .
■■■■■■ ■ Reserved- lane bus ) *

'/ ' ■",,,I-«-..! jV-t\ si ..N< |y

PEA BODY <>;

.1 ytK

'Wakefield

1 Scu»t_ ■W«inut 1

outer" service to suburbs, via "^s^SV
'iirproved rail service, express "X) ?'
, or combination k. L c^'>rfyL,nn

*\ ' V '-'> r»M \r

l.3xi.i2ton \/'

- f

"ALE.",

'[Saugus ft"

£ L Lexington i

//# Vacation ^sjj-'K] 2"1— )~^^,f„ 25^
,/icKrnDn ^'''"".'^nTTS' MfilflFN />"

' Cliff ondale

WW:

line-haul i

h * f/ij /^r transit, via dual-}
>.A ^( powered vehicles

* V?^'?™' or upgraded

8 conntuter rail

\ MALDEN

REVERE

X JSl^

5 served bus lanes on
bsoad311 exP- alternatives

""Blue line extension
to Pines River
MASSACHUSETTS

. or Green line rapid transi
.ensions to Alewife

ier Circumferential transit loopi*. »v^^ " \

/ Direct transit link to
Airport via Third Harbor
J Tunnel

jfog^ BOSTON

BAY

Maintaining of Wash. St. EJ, or

equivalent service, and extensions
- Z'-"2^^^/A"'Ll" to Mattapan Sq.

p'j£«r7?"" * r"2 /</6a v^-^

Extension of circumf rential
loop to Columbia Point

— 2j^»i'< C^niVT^-Light rail "transit or busway on

Hull

inge line extensions to W.Rox./
sdham, and Rt. 128 in Canton
I provision for high speed
msportation in Penn-Central RCW :>fi''C__

QUINCY ! (TV .™~°HA-1 j

"Reserved bus lanes in SE & SW Exp.
'°~ Corridors

J / 1 ✓ m^on quincy ^

54. QUINCY

-'Westwood

ml m

> ft

HIllS N.|RCSERVATION

^1-

if) \ . /

sr."L b V ' Norwood ^ v ,\-. -^J* "i

Soutti
Srj.n(n-e

^^Weymouth _ ' I;

(

. FACILITIES TO BE GIVEN PRIORITY CONSIDERATION DURING PHASE II - HIGHWAYS

Legend

mammmm New 4- lane exp. plus 2 special-purpose lanes

bihmm New 4 -lane exp. or arterial

hi Truck and special-vehicle routes

■n i ■ mm ■ Improved existing facility

Not shown, but applicable to all corridors: No new exp.

alternative, local arterial improvements only

Alternatives: 4 or 6 lanes exp., original _W:r-

~X/^xin^\><'ali^Iinent thru Lynn ^ Peabody; or
,J - v^„/V^'-\ ! „-\ j; 4 or 6 lane exp. in Rt? »1 .uaBiidar •

v /\ or major improvements to Rt. i — "

^J%.. 2 or 4 lane route from RT 2 to possiblefeX MEfcf ORD ^A^^^^^r^ MALDEN
terminations in Cambridge and L^^y^^^'fJJ^^^ I (I V****

^ Somerville following Fitchburg Div.

REVERE •

.-^as proposed, or alternativt
connectors to Rt. 128 (onl^
■-one of which shown)

£fr //""" NAliANT

f ,J\

-lane exp. spur fra
Revere Beach to

IIROAD,

ROW

Cutler Circle

i WALTHAM p

v. x- •' O 55 V-

, 4-lane route from RT

£ "' . following Watertown :

.-♦ 2 or 4 lane route, primarily
~-JjL trucks, fol laving Grand Junction t<S^i;js.jrfs
v_-C-row \ «?JP>/"2S*>'*

stcrtov

SGMERVILLEH V/'

fc4 or 6- lane exp. alter-
natives to original 1-95-

'-js^JT' >^';''^C"»~ relocated alignment,
'r ... avoiding E. Bos. &
r'jii ' H-- Revere residences

' "~, ....... ™.«."'V;««IW

■4rh

lane alternative for 3rd Harbo]
r< Tunnel, through Logan Airport
u property

u ' *' ' 'v, <

^■j^feibHfcr" boston "--::;v.-;----

k 4 %\ /
4 or 6 lane alternatives for SW Exp. ""
...; <,. with connections to Mass Pike and —
Third Harbor Tunnel.

•0 \ \

; ...^

Reversible lanes in SE Exp. corridoi

' "■ /\^f "A \

'D:«r « .

/ 1 vv Readville and Rt
^ l 'alternatives to exp.
/ thru Fowl Meadow

Iff J / ' '

■7=.

™- / jfX&r?? /'?«\ as alternative to SW Exp.

, Endcott s >\ /

4, cuincy"'*:

/'V .*/ _

J %' !' EDS C3

Braintree

COfKtft/fanMti

iWeymouth

1 ^

Nor.vootf j

* V?~-^wJ 1 Randolph'

tC. / — / Knaf»'

Asm! I
) .'

" J / \ *ry

' \" FACILITIES DROPPED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION

GOVERNOR'S STATEMENT ON THE NORTH SHORE

June 5, 1972

A little over a year ago, I made a commitment to decide
within ten months after the start of the work of the Boston
Transportation Planning Review, whether or not to build Route
1-95 North on the approved corridor through Revere, Saugus ,
Lynn and Peabody.

I have now received and studied the Boston Planning Review
Report on the North Shore. This is a total transportation report
dealing both with highway and public transportation issues on the
North Shore. It deals with four major categories of issues, all
of which are closely related to one another: line haul highway
issues; line haul transit issues; local service highway issues;
and local service transit issues.

The major line haul highway issue is whether or not to
build Route 1-95 from Cutler Circle to Route 128, and if so,
where and — at least in general terms — with what design.
With respect to my original qommitment on this issue, the options
for choice have broadened considerably since the beginning of the
Planning Review. As the Planning Review began, the only options
appeared to be the original DPW alignment through the Lynn Woods,
perhaps with changes in design; some very modest alternative
improvements to roads within basically the same corridor; or no
road at all. In Phase I the Planning Review generated several
major new highway alternatives in the Route 1 corridor — alter-
natives on which very little work had been done and about which
public discussion had not taken place. These appeared worthy of
serious examination, however, since they would avoid going through
residential neighborhoods and major public open space reserves.

By contrast, the Lynn alignment for 1-95 North had been
studied and debated for years. Its chief advantages were that
it would provide improved access to General Electric and certain
other commercial locations in Lynn, and by means of a series of
connector highways would tie the eastern shore communities in
to the regional expressway system. It had two major disadvan-
tages. First, the main highway alignment passed through the Lynn
Woods, the North Shore's largest and most valuable open-space
resource; and the connector alignment passed through valuable
recreational and watershed land in Peabody and Salem. Second,
the main highway alignment passed through the densely built up
residential area of West Lynn and residential land in Peabody,
requiring the taking of over 100 additional homes.

The alternatives in the Route 1 corridor can serve most
of the major functions of the Lynn Woods alignment, with the

exception that Lynn itself would not have an expressway within
its borders. The chief advantage of an expressway in Route 1 is
that it would be built in an existing transportation corridor,
which would have much less permanent impact on residential com-
munities and parkland. Its major disadvantage is that during
construction it would create significant disruption of existing
businesses on Route 1. Implementation of this scheme would
require a major state program of imaginative relocation assistance,
business redevelopment, and careful construction phasing.

While the number of transportation options has thus broadened
to include several major new alternatives, the legal analysis con-
ducted within the BTPR has clarified certain of the legal constraints
that must be accommodated as we move toward decision. The most
important legal constraint is Section 4(f) of the federal Department
of Transportation Act. This provision of federal law specifies
that the choice between the Lynn Woods corridor and the new (Route 1)
alternatives is not a pure policy decision for the state to make.
Rather, it calls for an initial finding as to whether any alter-
native to the Lynn Woods alignment constitutes a "feasible and
prudent" alternative within the meaning of Section 4(f).

The BTPR Phase II report provides the basis for a clear
conclusion that there is_ an alternative which does not take
substantial public parkland and which is feasible and prudent
within the meaning of federal law. Therefore it seems most
unlikely that a state decision to construct 1-9 5 on the Lynn
Woods alignment could be sustained in the courts. So as not to
mislead those who care to participate in the next stage of public
discussion, I am today taking official cognizance of this finding.
Although the Lynn Woods alternative is discussed in the report and
will be explained at the hearing to demonstrate how the BTPR
did its work, I hereby state that I will not recommend tb the
Federal Highway Administration the construction of 1-95 North
through the Lynn Woods. Route 1-95 North will thus not enter
the city of Lynn. 1-95 North will not be built on its original
corridor through the Lynn Woods.

Of the alternatives that remain, two involve the construction
of 1-95 in the area of Route 1. One of these would involve the
construction of 1-95 basically on the current Route 1 alignment.
The Interstate expressway would occupy the center of the new
facility, flanked by four lanes (two in each direction) of local
arterial roadway. The other alternative would have the expressway
lanes run essentially parallel to the existing Route 1, behind
the current development insofar as possible, leaving Route 1
as it now is to serve local traffic.

A third alternative does not involve the construction of a
new expressway, but it does involve what in my view is the minimal
program that is conceivable for a functioning Route 1 in the

absence of 1-95 — widening Route 1 in places, rebuilding an
interchange, and creating some safety improvements.

These are the three alternatives on which those who wish
to address themselves to the meaningful options that I am con-
sidering are advised to focus their attention in the coming
weeks. These alternatives will be the subject of a public
hearing early this summer, as soon as all required legal pro-
cedures have been completed. The first step in these procedures
has already occurred with the official transmittal of copies of
the report to the Federal Highway Administration. The forthcoming
hearing will enable the people of the North Shore to have a full
opportunity to view the plans and express their views about them
before the Commonwealth becomes committed to any of these schemes.

A widespread view has matured in recent months among the
active participants in the BTPR that a total decision on the
three major 1-95 segments under consideration and their associated
major transit investments, should be made at the same time, because
there is such a great interrelationship among aspects of any total
transportation system plan. I have reviewed that position and
find it essentially valid. Therefore, I will choose among these
Route 1 alternatives at the same time that I make decisions on
the Southwest Expressway and a Third Harbor Crossing. I anticipate
making these decisions in September. This involves some delay in
the original schedule for a Southwest Expressway decision, but an
acceleration in the schedule for decisions on Relocated 1-95 and
the Third Harbor Crossing.

Since the Lynn Woods alignment is now officially dead, a
connector which had been designed to connect Beverly, Salem, and
Swampscott to Route 1-95 cannot be implemented. The Planning Review,
however, has identified a corridor that runs mostly along existing
rail right-of-way from Salem through Peabody, in which a new four-
lane arterial street could provide greatly improved access from
the shore communities to Route 128 with minimal disruption. The
plan appears to command widespread support from officials and
citizens of both Peabody and Salem. I am today directing the
Department of Public Works to accelerate engineering and design
work on this proposal, aiming at the earliest possible public
hearing and the closest possible cooperation with the two com-
munities. Improved access from Marblehead and Swampscott to this
Peabody-Salem-Beverly connector will also be studied.

I am also directing the DPW and the BTPR to work closely with
the city of Lynn and representatives of the General Electric
Company to develop a detailed plan for improving access to
downtown Lynn and the GE plant. GE would have been the chief
beneficiary of 1-95 on the Lynn Woods alignment, since the city
of Lynn in past years rejected proposed downtown connectors. In
its absence, the Commonwealth is prepared to undertake smaller
scale but nevertheless significant improvements so that people
can get to and from this major employment center with greater

ease. I am also requesting the MBTA and the BTPR to work with
Lynn and GE in exploring whether improved or special transit
service, perhaps running direct from employee residences to the
plant gate, could be instituted specifically to serve GE and
possibly downtown as well.

At the outset I indicated that the BTPR report was a total
transportation report, not just a report about Interstate
expressways. Let me highlight three of the main findings
and issues in the other problem areas:

With respect to line-haul transit, a major improvement program
is called for -- but not in the form of high cost new transit
extensions into the outer North Shore. The commuter railroad
network already exists, and is an extremely valuable resource to
protect and upgrade. The report describes the need for right-
of-way improvement, better equipment, additional parking capacity,
and some construction to eliminate several major grade crossings.

With respect to local service transit, a number of improvements
in bus routes, schedules, and fares are proposed. These are
intended to make the bus system work more as an integrated network,
both as an effective feeder to the commuter rail system where
appropriate, and as a major means of travel between the North
Shore communities themselves. Public response to the details
of these proposals will be important.

With respect to local service highway issues, one major
category of North Shore transportation problems has to do with
congestion in town centers and on major arterial streets con-
necting North Shore towns to each other. Attention must be
focused on these very immediate, very difficult transportation
problems. Individually these problems and the kinds of improve-
ments which respond to them are relatively small scale, but
collectively they are very significant indeed. Off street
parking and arterial street improvements, better signs and
signals, improved traffic operations programs — these all
require the highest priority attention within the North Shore
subregion. I am today directing the DPW to accelerate its
comprehensive TOPICS program for the North Shore, in a manner
that will bring to fruition its promise as a model for the kind
of state-local cooperative transportation planning that Secretary
Altshuler, Commissioner Campbell and I are determined to achieve.

GOVERNOR FRANCIS W. SARGENT
POLICY STATEMENT ON TRANSPORTATION IN THE BOSTON REGION

November 3D, 19 7 2

BACKGROUND

Early in 1970, I halted work on a number of controversial
highway projects in the Boston area. At that time I established
the Boston Transportation Planning Review (BTPR) to advise me on
these controversies, and directed that these projects be reviewed
in conjunction with other pending transit and highway projects
in the region bounded by Route 128. I promised that we would
examine not just where and how expressways should be built, but
also whether they should be built at all.

My mandate to the BTPR was to produce the technical analys
needed to evaluate the impact of the proposed projects on a full
range of metropolitan issues. The planning process for this
study was to be open, broadly participatory, and fully compatible
with emerging federal and state policies with respect to trans-
portation, socio-economic, and environmental values. In order to
provide me with the widest range of options , I directed that the
BTPR pay particular attention to the development of new alterna-
tives which would address critical transportation needs , the move-
ment of goods and the provision of transportation opportunities
for the aged, the young, the low income, and the handicapped.
As a final product, I asked the BTPR to provide me with an objec-
tive analysis of the value of each possible transportation im-
provement as balanced against its unavoidable adverse impacts ,
such as residential and business displacement and environmental
disruption .

-2-

PHASE I DECISIONS - POLICY AND FACILITY OPTIONS FOR DETAILED STUDY
As there were a great many policy and project alternatives
to consider, it was essential that the options gradually be narrowed
during the course of the BTPR. Thus, the BTPR study design pro-
vided for phased decision-making with respect both to broad
transportation policies and specific project alternatives.

In December, 1971, at the conclusion of Phase I of the
BTPR, I reduced the range of highway alternatives for further
study by:

° Eliminating consideration of any expressway facilities
having more than four general-purpose traffic lanes
and, where appropriate, two special purpose traffic
lanes .

0 Eliminating the Cambridge-Somerville Inner-Belt and

the Route 2 Extension from Alewife to the Inner Belt

from further consideration.
More generally, I stated that new radial expressways de-
signed to accommodate peak-hour travel demand to downtown Boston
should no longer be considered, for the following reasons:

° Inability of already crowded city streets to receive

and distribute additional expressway traffic.
° Lack of adequate off-street parking capacity, and

inability to provide such capacity in an efficient,

orderly fashion.
° Competition with line-haul transit service, both

existing and proposed, leading to increased transit

operating deficits.

-3-

° Inescapable social disruption and environmental de-
gradation as a result of direct displacement, air
and noise pollution, and visual intrusion.

At the same time , I recognized the importance of highways in

meeting the travel demands of persons who work outside the down-
town Boston core , who come to the core at times other than peak
commuting periods , such as tourists and shoppers , or who have no
effective means of traveling other than on highways, such as
truckers. I asked the BTPR, therefore, to determine how much of
this non- commutation demand for highway space could be accommodated
at acceptable social, economic and environmental cost.

Finally, in order to provide efficient accessibility to
downtown Boston and to maintain the continued growth and vitality
of the region's central core, I directed the BTPR to consider
innovative improvement programs for the metropolitan transit
system. I stated that:

Our policy must be to encourage those who work in
the Boston core to commute by transit... Imple-
mentation of this policy will require an intensive
effort to improve our public transportation system.
It must take on a bigger share of the job. It will
need facilities, services, and funds to do that
job. We will look to the Planning Review, working
closely with the MBTA, to develop better means of
getting around in downtown, and of serving areas
that are not adequately served at present.

Subsequently, in June 1972, I announced the elimination

of the originally proposed route for 1-9 5 North through the Lynn
Woods and Saugus Marsh. Based on the BTPR draft Environmental
Impact Statement, I concluded that the presence of "feasible and
prudent" highway location alternatives, as defined by Federal

-it-

law, effectively precluded the use of the Lynn Woods for the pro-
posed 1-95 North expressway.

Formal public hearings were held for the remaining major
highway facility alternatives on the North Shore , in the Boston
Core, and in the Southwest Corridor during August and October 1972.
Testimony was received from a wide spectrum of public officials,
agencies, and private interests. I have considered this testimony
with great care. Along with the technical analyses provided by
the BTPR, it has been instrumental in shaping the decisions that
are set forth below.

POLICY DECISIONS

CENTRAL THEMES

The Boston area is fortunate in having an extensive rapid
transit and commuter rail network. The traditional reliance of
Bostonians upon this network for access to the regional core is
in large part responsible for the economic and cultural vitality
of the metropolis. For half a century until very recently, however,
this transit system has been permitted to deteriorate -- physically,
financially, and institutionally.

A judgment was reached in the early postwar period that
the primary public response to mounting traffic congestion and
the decline of transit should be massive investment in new free-
ways. The hope was that this public investment, combined with
still greater private investment in motor vehicles , would provide
a lasting solution to the transportation problems of the region.

-5-

We have gradually learned that this judgment was mistaken.
There was no way to provide sufficient highway and parking capa-
city while still preserving those characteristics of the region
that make it a highly attractive place to live and work. The
freeway investment strategy incorporated in the 1948 Master Plan
threatened to strangle the region in traffic, to destroy the fi-
nancial viability of the transit system, to dislocate many thou-
sands of families and hundreds of businesses, and to do irreparable
harm to many of the most valuable neighborhoods and open space
resources in the region. By accelerating the decline of transit
service, moreover, it threatened great harm to those groups in the
population that are most dependent on transit for their mobility --
the elderly, the low income, the handicapped, and the young.

Thus , the time has come to right the balance in trans-
portation policy for the Boston region.

The central tenet of the transportation policy that I find
appropriate for the area inside Route 128 is that future invest-
ment must concentrate overwhelmingly upon the improvement of
public transportation. Many of the investments that will be called
for by this strategy will be highway investments, but they too
should contribute to the effective utilization of transit for
access to the regional core. Some of these investments will be
special purpose facilities and dedicated lanes for buses -- along,
where appropriate , with other high priority vehicle types , such as
trucks and emergency vehicles. Some will be for improved arterial
connectors providing more convenient access from major highways
to transit stations. Some will be for parking facilities at

-6-

transit stations. Some will be for traffic operations improvements,
particularly those designed to give buses , trucks and emergency
vehicles preference in congested traffic corridors.

Thus, we need a combination of transit and highway invest-
ments. These investments should be planned in concert, however,
to facilitate the implementation of a unified transportation
policy .

We will, of course, continue to use and improve the exist-
ing street and highway system of the region. I recognize that most
trips in the region will continue to be by motor vehicle. We
shall improve this existing system, moreover, wherever it is
possible to do so at acceptable cost -- in terms of environmental
and social disruption as well as dollar cost.. But we shall give
the highest priority within the framework of available resources
to those road and parking improvements that will contribute to
the unified policy that I am announcing today.

If we are to succeed in stabilizing the level of highway
travel, so that we can utilize the existing street and highway
network with optimal effectiveness , it is essential that we employ
the most effective lever available for the limitation of traffic
demand -- parking policy. If we continue to increase the supply
of parking at major activity centers in the regional core, we
shall severely undermine the strategy of accommodating future
travel demand increases by transit.

Thus, I am calling for a freeze on the total supply of
parking in downtown Boston and at Logan Airport. As the freeze
will apply to the total number of parking spaces, it will leave

-7-

substantial flexibility with respect to the relocation of parking
supply -- from on-street to off-street facilities, for example.
The freeze is not intended to apply to residential spaces (as
downtown residents are not major contributors to peak hour con-
gestion) nor to parking facility additions that are already
contractually committed (such as the parking component of the
South Terminal at Logan Airport).

Finally, I shall recommend a transportation local aid
package to the General Court -- one intended to encourage balanced
transportation throughout the Commonwealth and at the same time
to provide needed property tax relief to local citizens. The
main components of this local aid package are as follows:

(a) state assumption of 50% of the net cost of MBTA service,

(b) enactment of regional transit legislation for the other
urban areas of the Commonwealth, with a similar provision for
50% state sharing of net cost of service, and (c) a near-
quadrupling of the Chapter 90 program of local highway aid, with
the increase to be distributed only outside the MBTA district.
The total package is designed to provide assistance equitably

to all portions of the Commonwealth. It recognizes that the
primary need is for transit assistance within the MBTA region,
but that the largest dollar needs will continue to be for high-
way purposes elsewhere in the Commonwealth.

HIGHWAY DECISIONS

Following my determination in December 1971 that no
further effort should be made to design expressways for the

-8-

accommodation of peak hour general-purpose traffic demand, BTPR
planners developed several plans for mini-expressways that were
indeed far more appropriate to the transportation needs of the
region than the larger expressways for whose reexamination I had
called in 1970. If designed and managed so as to minimize dis-
ruption and competitiveness with the transit system, they could
have provided some genuine benefits.

They were also extremely costly, however. With one ex-
ception, I find that the costs inevitably associated with these
facilities would have exceeded their benefits. The costs I have
in mind are not simply dollar costs, though these would have been
extremely great. Even more significantly, I have borne in mind
the impacts that construction of these facilities would have
upon the social, economic, and environmental fabric of the region.
The Southwest Expressway, for example, would have involved run-
ning an elevated highway through the Fowl Meadow, a major water
resource, wildlife sanctuary, and recreational open space facility.
It would also have involved the further dislocation of about
370 families and 800 jobs. Finally, it would have in-

volved overruling the clear preference of most elected officials
and private citizens in the Southwest Corridor who have made their
views known.

The one exception that I have made to this finding that
we cannot sustain additional expressway construction within
Route 128 is a two-lane special purpose road, including a tunnel,
from the South Station area to Logan Airport. This facility
will be open solely to buses, airport limousines, taxis, trucks,

-9-

and emergency vehicles. Its purposes will be to encourage
passenger access to Logan by means other than the private auto-
mobile, and to facilitate goods movement. It will not involve
the taking of any homes or public open space. It will involve
the relocation of only one business. I find it essential to
the larger transit and highway management strategy that I am
today recommending for the region.

In order for the bus/truck tunnel to achieve its full
potential, it is essential that three related developments occur.
First, a high-quality bus and limousine service must be developed
to provide rapid, frequent, and comfortable service from a number
of pick-up points distributed conveniently throughout the region
to Logan Airport. I shall look to the Port Authority to develop
this service , and to finance both the rolling stock and satellite
terminal facilities that will be required. Second, parking
facilities will have to be developed at a number of the satellite
terminal locations . I shall look to the Department of Public
Works, drawing upon available Federal aid, to develop these
facilities. Third, a freeze must be placed on Logan parking
supply. It is essential that future parking investment intended
to serve the airport be distributed at convenient locations well-
removed from the core rather than at the Airport itself. The
freeze that I propose is not, of course, intended to preclude the
reorganization of parking arrangements within the Airport, nor
is it intended to apply to projects that are contractually
committed today.

In addition, the implementation of this project will

-10-
re qui re Federal agreement to finance it on a 90-10 matching basis,
and a guarantee to bondholders in the existing Sumner and Callahan
Tunnels that their investment will not be impaired.

It is possible that Federal financing will require a
technical amendment to Federal highway legislation. At the
present time, a busway can be financed on a 90-10 basis, but there
is no provision in current Federal law for the financing of a
special purpose facility open as well to trucks and emergency
vehicles* I believe that the facility I propose can be
adequately justified for Federal financing on the basis
of projected transit use alone, but truck and emergency
vehicle utilization of the facility does seem likely to
require legislation. I am optimistic that this will be viewed
in the Congress as a technical amendment to the existing busway
provision rather than as a major policy change.

State legislation will be required to eliminate the
current prohibition on construction of an additional harbor
crossing within one mile downstream of the existing Sumner and
Callahan Tunnels. It is unclear at this time whether the out-
standing revenue bonds on these tunnels will have to be refi-
nanced (which would require legislation) , or whether an agreement
with the bondholders can be negotiated. It does seem certain,
however, that the financial viability of the Sumner and Callahan
Tunnels will be unimpaired, and that, consequently, there will
be no taxpayer cost of the financial arrangement that is eventu-
ally determined.

I would hope to have the Turnpike Authority design,

-11-

construct , and operate the new tunnel under contract with the
Department of Public Works. The efficiency and experience of
the Turnpike Authority in this field should be fully utilized as
the project goes forward.

In addition to the bus/truck tunnel, I believe that a
number of highway improvements of a non-expressway nature are
called for within Route 128. Those that have been clearly iden-
tified by the Boston Transportation Planning Review are listed
on the table on page 41 and involve an aggregate cost of more
than $100 million. This figure should be added to the $200
million cost estimate for the special purpose tunnel to Logan
Airport and to the approximately $100 million that DPW will spend
on parking and traffic management projects within Route 128 during
the remainder of this decade.

I am deferring decision at this time on a project idea
that emerged during the later stages of the BTPR itself. This
proposal would involve depression of the Central Artery and con-
struction of a rail connection between North and South stations.
While further analysis is required, I have seen enough of this
proposal to judge that it merits the most serious consideration.
I am directing that a more detailed study be conducted in the coming
months of its probable benefits and costs.

The Central Artery project (which has an estimated cost
of $280 million, of which $80 million would be for the rail con-
nection) would greatly improve the attractiveness of downtown Boston
upon its completion; it would provide substantial traffic benefit;

-12-

and the rail connection would be of significant benefit to com-
muter rail patrons. We must carefully examine the following
questions, however: whether it is worth its high dollar cost;
whether the traffic disruption that would occur during the six
year construction period can be held to acceptable levels; and
whether the expanded highway would compete with the improved
transit system that I believe must be the centerpiece of our
transportation policy. I believe as well that the decision on
this project should be made only after there has been opportunity
for the kind of full citizen participation that has marked the
Boston Transportation Planning Review.

I hope that the Central Artery analysis will proceed
with sufficient rapidity to permit a more definitive conclusion
during 1973.

-13-

TRANSIT

In 1971, I worked with the MBTA and key legislative leaders
to secure authorization of a major bond issue, intended primarily
for modernization of the existing rapid transit system. That pro-
gram has begun within recent months to produce large Federal
commitments to the funding of vitally needed capital investments ,
and contracts with vendors for the implementation of these projects.

I am today recommending a vast enlargement of the transit
investment program that we have begun to implement this year.
Together with the modernization projects authorized in the 19 71
bond issue, they constitute a total transit investment program
in the range of $1.3 billion. Of this total, nearly $600 million
involves modernization of the existing commuter rail and rapid
transit systems. The remainder is for new or relocated rapid
transit lines and for extensions of existing lines. All cost
estimates are in terms of 1972 prices.

I am optimistic that all of these projects will be eligible
for 2/3 Federal funding, and hopeful that Congress will increase
the Federal matching ratio within the next year or so. I shall
be extremely active in the Federal arena to bring this about, and
to increase the total level of Federal transit assistance that is
available nationwide.

On the basis of current Federal aid levels , the total
program recommended today should take about 15 years to get fully
under contract and 18 or 20 years to complete. I am hopeful that
increased Federal aid will permit cutting this time span by five
to eight years. In the meantime, we shall have to make some hard

-14-

phasing decisions as to which projects are implemented earlier,
which later, in the total program.

The dollar totals cited above are exlusive of investments
by the Department of Public Works that I expect to be undertaken
primarily or exclusively for transit purposes. These include
the special purpose bus/truck tunnel to Logan Airport ($200
million) and at least $100 million for access roads and parking
facilities at transit stations and satellite air terminals .

The entire transit improvement program is summarized in
the Table on page 15 and discussed in the following paragraphs.

The results of the BTPR analysis clearly indicate that the
Southwest Corridor has the greatest overall need for investment in
improved transit service. Transit investments are urgently needed
in this corridor, both to provide improved mobility for the resi-
dents of the Southwest area and to spur the renewal of the land
which has been cleared for the Southwest Expressway. The early
provision of transit service in this cleared land area has been
identified as a key component of the program for revitalizing this
area. In addition, with the relocation of the Orange Line from
the Washington Street Elevated to the cleared land corridor, it
is clear that a replacement service must be provided for the
South End, Roxbury , Dorchester, and Mattapan. I place the pro-
vision of both of these services as high priority items in the
expanded transit program.

While there is no question among any of the participants
as to the need for the two services set forth above, questions
still remain as to the specific design of the facilities to provide

15.

COST OF RECOMMENDED TRANSIT INVESTMENTS (Millions of Dollars)*

PROJECT

Low
Estimate

High
Estimate

EXPLANATION OF RANGE

9 .

Modernization Projects
Authorized Under 1971
Bond Issue.

Modernization Projects
for Rapid Transit and
Bus Service in Addition
to Those Authorized
Under the 1971 Bond
Issue .

Commuter Rail

Modernization .

Red Line Extension

from Harvard Square

to Alewife or Arlington

Heights .

Relocated Orange Line
from South Cove via
Forest Hills to both
Needham and Canton.

Replacement Service
for the Washington
Street El through the
South End, Roxbury and
Dorchester to Mattapan
Inner Circumferential
Transit Line.

Blue Line Improve-
ments in East Boston
and Revere .

Red Line Extension from
Quincy Center to South
Quincy .

Green Line Extension
from Lechmere to
Somerville (under
study ) .

TOTALS :

243

250

243

250

70
112

70
200

172

240

106

274

112

254

1 ,111

1,577

Remaining issues:
should there be stations
at Porter Square, Davis
Square , and Arlington
Heights? how much
deep bore construction,
as opposed to cut and
cover?

Should the section rrom
Ruggles Street to
Forest Hills be on the
existing Penn Central
embankment or be de-
pressed?

How much of the system
should be underground?

Which rapid transit
technology should be
used? how much of the
system should be under-
ground ?

'•'•* These figures do not include the cost of the bus/truck tunnel to Logan
Airport ($200 million) or the cost of parking facilities and access roads
at transit stations that will be constructed by the Department of Public
Works (roughly, $100 million).

-16-

the services. With respect to the relocated Orange Line, there
is a question as to whether this service should be provided on the
existing Penn Central embankment or should be depressed. 'There is
no question that a depressed facility would in the long run provide
a service more compatible with the environment of the area. How-
ever, the depression of this facility will cost approximately
$60 million more than if the embankment were used, and there is
a question as to whether this is compatible with the most rapid
possible revitalization of the cleared land. In the replacement
corridor, the questions revolve around whether the transit service
should be provided on surface streets, similar to the service on
Commonwealth Avenue, or whether it should be in a subway. With
regard to these issues, I feel that an additional two months is
needed for technical analysis and consultation with the communities
most affected. Therefore, while I am today recommending the pro-
vision of these two services, I am deferring for two months my
specific design recommendations for these two projects.

Throughout the region, transit investments which extend
existing lines to the perimeter of the high density zone and to
connections with major highways appear to be exceptionally cost
effective in terms of the transit service they provide to the re-
sidents of the region and their effect on auto commutation to
the core. Recommendations for extensions of this type include
the Red Line to Route 2 at Alewife, the Orange Line to Route 12 8
in both Needham and Canton, the connection of the Blue Line to
Route 1 via the Revere Beach Connector, and the Red Line Extension
from Quincy Center to Route 128 in South Quincy.

-17-

Two other rapid transit extensions are under investigation
by the BTPR. These are the further extension of the Red Line from
Alewife through Arlington and Lexington to Route 128 and extension
of the Green Line from its present terminus at Lechmere to Ball
Square in Somerville. Inasmuch as the analyses in the Northwest
Corridor have not been completed, I will defer at this time
recommendations on these two projects.

The BTPR has confirmed the finding of previous studies
that a key limiting factor in our present transit system is its
distributional capability, particularly in the Central Area. The
BTPR has produced an innovative and exciting proposal for circum-
ferential transit, which would increase the effectiveness of our
entire transit system by providing for much needed circumferential
movement around the downtown as well as better distribution within
the downtown. I am recommending that this concept be pursued and
that more detailed engineering and feasibility studies be undertaken
by the MBTA.

In the setting of priorities for improving and extending
our transit system, recognition must be made of the essential
nature and high priority of a number of catch-up projects not in-
volving new transit routes, but rather such items as new maintenance
facilities, rolling stock replacement, and station modernization.
The need for this modernization is well recognized and is being
vigorously pursued at the present time by MBTA; therefore, my
recommended program contains an additional $250 million for the
continuance of this program over the period to 1985. A component
of a modernization program not included in the above is the

-18-

ref urbishing and restoring of the extensive commuter rail system,
which this region can no longer afford to neglect. We simply
cannot allow this valuable asset to deteriorate further. It is
a critical component of an overall transportation program to meet
the transport needs of today as well as the future. Therefore,
I am recommending an intensive, five-year, $70 million commuter
rail improvement program.

-19-

LQCAL AID

Having reviewed the major capital investment needs of the
MBTA, it is essential to recognize that a vital transit system
requires more than capital investment. It also requires a stable
and equitable structure for the financing of operations. The
MBTA was almost brought to a standstill by a political dispute
over the issue of finance last summer, and transit service is
rapidly disappearing from the Commonwealth's other urban areas
than Boston in the absence of a clear public policy for its
support .

Following adjournment of the Legislature last summer,
I appointed a Special Executive Recess Commission on the MBTA,
chaired by the Secretary of Transportation, Alan Altshuler.
A list of the entire membership of the Recess Commission is
attached .

The Recess Commission has not yet reported, but I have
kept fully informed of its deliberations. It has recognized,
moreover, that its perspective on overall state needs is not
sufficiently broad for it to determine what the state can afford.
Thus , having provided me with the varying views of its members ,
it has been awaiting a communication from me with respect to the
level of state financing that I consider feasible before com-
pleting its deliberations. I hope that the Recess Commission
will find these recommendations responsive to its deliberations.

My recommendation is that the state adopt a three-part
local aid package in the field of transportation.

-20-

The first part, and that most relevant to the Boston region,
is that the state should assume 50% of the MBTA net cost of ser-
vice, across the board. Debt service and the operating commuter
rail deficit, two categories of cost that are now borne primarily
by the state, should be treated exactly as all other cost items.
Commuter rail, rapid transit, and bus services are all part of a
single integrated system. Capital investment and operating costs
should likewise be viewed together when decisions about financial
priorities have to be made. The MBTA Enabling Act recognizes
the financial unity of the system, and thus defines the "net cost
of service" as including all those costs that are borne by tax-
payers rather than out of farebox revenues.

The Recess Commission has considered and rejected the al-
ternative of having increased state aid focus on particular cost
categories. One plausible approach was to concentrate state aid
on express service , leaving the total cost of local service to be
borne by local taxpayers. Recess Commission members feared that
such a policy might lead to a severe curtailment of local service.
They noted that local service brings patrons to and distributes
from the express service system. Thus, the two types of service
are integrally related. Second, they noted that local service is
particularly important to the most transit-dependent groups in the
population, those who rely upon transit for their shopping, medi-
cal, and social trips as well as for their commutation trips. It
would be ironical indeed if a formula for increased state aid led
indirectly to a curtailment of those services most needed by the

-21-

most transit-dependent groups in the region.

In short, I find that the regional transit system should be
viewed as a unity for planning and financial management purposes,
and I believe that the state-local partnership should extend to
each of these categories of cost equally. Recognizing that the
transit system provides major direct benefits to residents of the
Boston region as well as indirect benefits to all citizens of the
Commonwealth, I believe that the 50-50 division of financial res-
ponsibility is as equitable as any that can be devised. I hope and
trust that it will provide the basis for a long-term settlement of
the dispute over what portion of the MBTA net cost of service
should be borne by the state.

During the most recent year for which complete data are
available, Calendar 1371, the state bore 22% of the net cost of
MBTA service. Thus, implementation of the formula that I recommend
will more than double the state share. The added cost to the
Commonwealth (over and above the 22% level) should be in the range
of $29-31 million for Calendar 1973. It is estimated that the
total state share of the Calendar 1973 net cost of service under
this plan will be $51-53 million.

If the state is to bear such a large, general, and con-
tinuing responsibility for the net cost of MBTA service, some new
mechanisms will be necessary to ensure that MBTA financial needs
are evaluated within the framework of overall state priorities.
It will also be essential to guarantee that the crisis of last
summer, in which a shutdown of the regional transit system was

-22-

threatened, will not be repeated. To achieve these objectives,
I shall recommend to the General Court that the following pattern
of organization for review of the MBTA budget should be adopted:
... the Legislature should provide broad authority,
within a fixed dollar limit to be established
annually, for the Executive Office of Administration
and Finance to enter into contracts for financial
assistance with the MBTA (similar to current capital
and commuter rail assistance);
. . . the MBTA budget should pass through the Executive

Branch and be subject to itemized reductions by the
Governor prior to being submitted to the Advisory
Board for approval. The proposed procedure would be
identical to that for handling Executive agency
budget requests before their submission to the
General Court, except that no additions by the
Governor would be permitted.

The Advisory Board should be empowered to restore
budget cuts made by the Governor, but such increases
should not be eligible for state assistance.
... The Advisory Board's power to reduce the MBTA budget
should be curtailed. Its authority should be suf-
ficient to enable it to press the MBTA effectively
to keep its costs under tight control. But it should
not have the power to shut down the system. My
recommendation is that the Advisory Board be

-23-

empowered to veto spending increases only when these
bring the MBTA budget to the level of the previous
year plus the rate of increase in the Consumer Price
Index for the most recent twelve months as of the time
that the budget is submitted. It may be appropriate
to allow an additional 2% in recognition of the fact
that transit service costs seem inescapably to rise
more rapidly than the Consumer Price Index as a whole.
They have actually risen about 6-7% faster in recent
years .

Overall, these new budgetary review mechanisms would pro-
vide: (a) an independent and professionally staffed executive
review of MBTA budget submissions, designed to keep a tight rein
on MBTA cost increases, (b) concurrent veto authority over MBTA
cost increases by both the state and local financial partners in
bearing the net cost of MBTA service, and (c) a guarantee that the
region will not again be faced with the threat of an MBTA shutdown
as a lever in disputes between the Commonwealth and local govern-
ments .

These proposals with respect to the MBTA constitute the
first part of my recommended local aid transportation package. The
second part is passage of a Regional Transit bill along the lines
of that which I have recommended to the General Court for the past
two years -- with one major addition. The addition is that re-
gional transit systems should be eligible for 50% state partici-
pation in their net cost of service on identical terms with the

-24-

MBTA. The estimated first year cost of this recommendation is
$1 million.

Part 3 of the proposed local aid package is a major in-
crease in the Chapter 9 0 program of local highway aid, to be
funded from the Accelerated Highway Program. The local aid highway
package should consist of three parts:

(a) a new program combining the present Chapter 81 and
Chapter 9 0 programs, to be funded at the current com-
bined level for these two programs of $10.7 5 million.
These funds should be distributed on the basis of
the current or a slightly modified Chapter 90 formula
throughout the state. The Secretary of Transportation
and Construction and the Commissioner of Public Works
are currently working with a representative committee
of local highway officials on a review of the Chapter
90 formula to see if some modifications would be
appropriate. I look forward to receiving the product
of this review by the first of the year.

(b) a further program adding $30 million a year for local
highway assistance, to be distributed only to those
communities outside the MBTA region. Aside from the
limitation to communities outside the MBTA district,
these funds should be distributed in accord with the
same formula as (a).

-25-

current allocation under the Chapter 81 and Chapter
9 0 programs, and that no city or town outside the
MBTA district receives less than twice its current
allocation .

Under the current Chapter 81 and Chapter 90 programs, the
state share is 50%, with the county being responsible for 25%
and the city or town being responsible for the other 2 5%. On the
basis of consultations with local highway officials, I have come
to the conclusion that county participation should be eliminated,
with the state share increasing thereby to 75%.

The local highway aid program here recommended can be
supported for at least the next decade, even with a 3-5% annual
rate of increase to keep up with inflation, from the debt service
portion of the Highway Fund with no increase in taxes. This esti-
mate takes full account of other likely demands upon the Highway
Fund .

The objective of the entire local aid transportation
package is to recognize the varying transportation needs of dif-
ferent regions of the Commonwealth. Within the MBTA district,
the primary need at this time is for transit investment and for
assistance in financing the net cost of MBTA service. Elsewhere
in the Commonwealth, there is also a need for transit assistance,
but the primary investment emphasis will continue to be on highways.

Recognizing these varying needs, the package is designed
to provide both transportation assistance and property tax relief
equitably to all portions of the Commonwealth. The highway

-26-

portion will, of course, be funded from highway user revenues,
while the transit portions of the package will have to be fi-
nanced from other revenue sources. Statewide, the total first year
increase in local aid that this package will entail is about
$60 million.

-27-

MEMBERSHIP
of the

GOVERNOR'S COMMISSION TO EXAMINE THE FINANCING AND ORGANIZATION
OF THE MASSACHUSETTS BAY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

CHAIRMAN ALAN ALTSHULER, Secretary of Transportation and

Construction, Commonwealth of
Massachusetts

SENATOR EDWARD L. BURKE

SENATOR WILLIAM L. SALTONSTALL

REPRESENTATIVE LINCOLN P. COLE, JR.

REPRESENTATIVE THOMAS W. McG EE

REPRESENTATIVE RAYMOND F. ROURKE

REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPH B. WALSH

MAYOR GEORGE R. MCCARTHY, City of Everett

MARYOR RICHARD L. WAINWRIGHT , City of Brockton

MAYOR KEVIN H. WHITE, City of Boston

CITY MANAGER FRANCIS J. McGRATH , City of Worcester

PROFESSOR JOHN F. COLLINS, Former Mayor of Boston

CHAIRMAN HENRY S. LODGE, MBTA

PROFESSOR THEODORE S. BACON, JR.

MR. GEORGE BAILEY

MR. WILLIAM L. FOX

MR. FRANCIS X. MEANEY

MRS. MARC I A MO LAY

MR. CHARLES TURNER

TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AND PARKING

The region within Route 128 has an enormous street, highway,
and parking network currently in place. We have reached the point
at which major additions to this network are incompatible with the
overall transportation and quality of life needs of the region.
Thus, it is essential that we manage the existing network with far
greater care than hitherto, striving above all to ensure that it
serves and complements rather than competes with the regional
transit system.

The primary objectives of the region's traffic management
and parking strategy should be to discourage the use of the auto-
mobile for peak hour commutation and to provide very high quality
service to those types of traffic that are (i) essential to the
social and economic life of the region and (ii) non-susceptible of
diversion to the rail network. In considering strategic options,
it should be kept in mind that the congestion problem is essentially
one of weekday peak periods -- two or three hours a day in each
direction. For the most part, our existing highway network is
capable of providing quite good service during off-peak periods
into the indefinite future.

The kinds of peak hour trips that are most essential to
the region and not amenable to service by rail transit are cargo
trips, trips by rubber tired transit vehicles, and urgent trips
for reasons of public health and safety. Those trips in the last
category are most notably those by fire engines, ambulances, and
police cars. In some circumstances as well, it may be appropriate

-29-

to give priority to high occupancy automobiles (carpools), on the
ground that in a situation of limited supply they enable the public
road investment to provide high quality service to a greater number
of people than does a system which fails to discriminate between
single-occupant and high-occupancy vehicles. Proposals to give
carpools preference in peak hours require very careful evaluation,
however, because those whose working hours are sufficiently regular
to permit carpooling tend to be prime candidates for transit use.

The major components of the region's traffic management
and parking policy, in my view, should be the following: (a) the
development of special lanes and other traffic operations techni-
ques intended to provide free-flow service for trucks, buses, air-
port limousines , emergency vehicles , and other high priority
vehicle types that may be identified on as many major arteries
as possible in the region, during peak as well as off-peak periods,
(b) a freeze on the creation of additional parking capacity in
downtown Boston (see map) and at Logan Airport, except as new
spaces are offset by the elimination of existing (particularly
on-street) spaces and as their location is determined in consulta-
tion with the Joint Regional Transportation Committee," and (c)
parking limitations of perhaps a less stringent nature outside
the "freeze" zone but within several miles of downtown.

* The Joint Regional Transportation Committee is the
Federally recognized successor to the Working Committee of the
Boston Transportation Planning Review. It is the product of an
interagency agreement that currently includes the Executive Office
of Transportation and Construction, the Metropolitan Area Planning

-31-

I do not think that this strategy can be fully implemented
overnight , but it should be implemented to the extent feasible in
the near future, and it should become a key policy guideline for
transportation planning in the Boston region. The special bus
lane on the Southeast Expressway is a significant application of
the recommended strategy that is already in operation. I hope
that it can be developed into a permanent, all year round, facility.
The interim management strategy recently announced for 1-9 3 on
the approach to the Central Artery, to go into effect next year,
will be another application of this strategy. The proposed bus/
truck tunnel to Logan Airport is a third. The identification of
other management opportunities in the region should be a prime
task of future transportation planning in the region.

Footnote continued from page 10:

Council (MAPC), and the Department of Public Works. The MBTA is
expected to become a signatory within the next several weeks, and
it is hoped that the Massachusetts Port Authority will eventually
become a signatory as well. The Federal Department of Transporta-
tion has recently required that a unified transportation planning
grant application be submitted annually for each urban region in
the nation. This application for the Boston region must be de-
veloped jointly by the signatory agencies in close consultation
with the Joint Regional Transportation Committee. Similarly,
capital grant applications must be consistent with comprehensive
plans that have been developed in consultation with the Committee.

Thus, though new and somewhat ad hoc , the Joint Regional
Transportation Committee is a very important body. Its membership
is composed as follows: (a) all members of the transportation
committee of MAPC, (b) the state Secretaries of Transportation
and Construction, Communities and Development, and Environmental
Affairs, and (c) seven private citizens, who have been designated
by the Secretary of Transportation and Construction after con-
sultation with the President of MACP.

-32-

The proposed freeze on the total parking supply in downtown
Boston and at Logan Airport has two. significant qualifications.
It is not intended for the freeze to apply to residential parking
spaces , nor to spaces that are currently under construction or con-
tractual commitment. The residential exclusion is based on the
judgment that downtown residents place very little peak hour burden
on the highway system. The exclusion of spaces that are contractually
committed is intended to minimize the inevitable pain that transition
to a new policy entails for some of those who have made plans based
on previous policies.

I do not believe that parking restrictions should be con-
fined to the very limited downtown area delineated on the attached
map. A decision on the types and degrees of limitation that may
be appropriate for other sub-areas within several miles of the
core must await completion of the master parking study that is
currently being conducted by the Department of Public Works in
consultation with the City of Boston and other public bodies.

I am pleased to report that preliminary consultations with
Mayor White have produced general agreements on the approach to
parking policy here outlined. I am hopeful that he and I will be
able to reach agreement in the near future on a legislative
package to facilitate implementation of a comprehensive parking
policy for the Boston region, including the downtown freeze. In
the meantime, I will expect state agencies to be guided by my
policy as they consider state-aided or state-regulated investments
in parking facilities and/or access roads to parking facilities.

-33-

I hope that the Massachusetts Port Authority will agree
to the freeze on future parking development at Logan as part of
my overall package providing for Federal and state financing of
the bus/truck tunnel to Logan Airport and of parking facilities
for Logan employees and patrons located around the Route 128
periphery. I am likewise hopeful that the Port Authority will
agree to take primary responsibility for the proposed bus/limousine
service to Logan Airport.

DEVELOPMENT OF THE SOUTHWEST CORRIDOR CLEARED LAND

The decision not to build an expressway in the Southwest
Corridor necessarily brings with it the need to implement a program
for the sound and sensitive redevelopment of the cleared land in
the corridor and for the equitable treatment of those who have
been affected by the demolition in the corridor.

I shall appoint a Southwest Corridor Development Coordin-
ator who will be accountable to me and responsible for the following
basic actions :

° Management of the design of the arterial street
° Immediate disposition of DPW-owned land south of
Forest Hills

° Supervision of an inter-agency process for the

formulation of detailed plans for the disposition
of cleared and other DPW-owned land north of Forest
Hills under a transportation and land development
program

Management and maintenance of the state owned
land in the corridor through the development
period

Relocation and construction, where necessary, of
replacement housing for those displaced by the
arterial who have not yet been relocated
Immediate execution of interim improvements in
the corridor, including the development of open
space on cleared land

The Development Coordinator will work closely with the
Offices of the Governor and the Mayor of Boston. In this regard,
Mayor White and I have agreed to work cooperatively to develop this
devastated corridor into an asset for Boston and the region. The
state and the city will both provide staff resources for the devel-
opment effort. Each of us will assign a senior staff member within
our respective offices to act as liaison between us and with the
Coordinator .

There are a number of agencies at the state and municipal
levels which have direct interests in and responsibilities for the
formulation and execution of development plans in and affecting the
corridor. These agencies include at least the following:

State Department of Public Works — Design activities

for urban arterial, including continuation, at appropriate

level of detail, an analysis of social, economic, and

-35-

environmental impacts, conduct of design hearings,
etc. j construction of arterial; land disposition
actions, etc.

Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority -- Design
and construction activities for Relocated Orange Line
(Back Bay station to Forest Hills) and removal of
elevated; joint development design at: stations, etc.

Metropolitan District Commission — Formulation and
execution of recreation and open space plans in and
affecting the corridor; maintenance pf open space,
etc .

Boston Redevelopment Authority -- Formulation of cor-
ridor plans (at level of detail required for' Standard
Loan and Grant application, including development of
parcel boundaries, etc.); amendments to existing renewal
plans (e.g., Campus High) where necessary under overall
corridor plan; etc.

City of Boston -- Adequate police protection for the
corridor .

The Development Coordinator, working with the liaisons from
Offices of the Governor and Mayor, and with relevant Secretaries
from the Governor's Cabinet, will take immediate action to execute
an inter-agency agreement which will govern the planning, design,

-36-

and development actions occurring over the next twelve-to-eighteen-
month period. Agencies participating in this agreement should in-
clude those listed above as well as others (e.g., DCA, Model Cities,
EDIC, etc.) who may perform functions in the development effort.
The agreement should provide that signatory agencies will provide
staff for the corridor development effort, and that such staff will
be under the supervision and control of the Development Coordinator.

Each participating agency will also appoint a senior mem-
ber who will act as an expediter of all development activities in-
volving or affecting the respective agency. These agency repre-
sentatives will form with the Development Coordinator a Steering
Group will have general responsibility for working with the Coor-
dinator and his development staff in the preparation and execution
of plans and programs for the Southwest Corridor. The Steering
Group will review the organization plan and on-going work program
of the development staff and any consultants; assist the Coordinator,
the Offices of the Governor and Mayor, and the relevant Cabinet
Secretaries in the formulation of an appropriate budget and funding
arrangements for all aspects of the development effort; and work
closely with the Community Advisory Board (to be designated momen-
tarily) in the provision of long-range and day-to-day policy
guidance to the Development Coordinator and Staff.

The Coordinator and the Governor /Mayor liaisons will
immediately appoint a Community Advisory Council, which will sit
with the Steering Group and insure that relevant community groups

-37-

and interests are fully represented in the process of preparing
and executing corridor development plans. This Council will
include sub-committees for persons and interests basically north
or south of Forest Hills. The Council will operate in terms of the
precedent established by the Project Coordinating Committee and
the Steering Committee established for the Boston Transportation
Planning Review. No decisions will be reached through voting.
Where the Group and Council reach consensus, among themselves and
with each other, the Coordinator and his staff will abide by that
consensus. However, where basic disagreement persists and consensus
cannot be reached, the Coordinator will decide the issue after
full discussion.

The essential function of the Advisory Council is to
insure that the development process is open and broadly participa-
tory, and that the full range of values affected by the corridor
development effort are articulated and represented throughout the
process .

Over the next twelve to eighteen months, the corridor
redevelopment effort just outlined will provide a solid framework
for the preparation and execution of plans for the restoration of the
Southwest Corridor. During the year, the state administration will do
all within its power to modify existing budgets and agency priorities
in order to expedite redevelopment and rehabilitation in the corridor.
The Mayor has pledged the same level of concern and effort on the
part of the City. At the end of this initial period, specific re-
sponsibilities will be assigned to various state and city agencies
participating in the redevelopment effort, and a judgment will be

-38-

made whether the Development Coordinator, a single agency, or a
nsw Development Corporation should retain the responsibility for
the management of the overall redevelopment program.

-39-

CONCLUSION

Today's decisions concerning highways and transit inside
Route 128 should be viewed as part of the balanced transportation
program that I have been developing for the entire state and indeed
for the New England region. It is worth noting my firm and con-
tinuing commitment to those key transportation policies that I have
previously announced:

° Joint action with other New England Governors and
the Federal Government to make high speed ground
transportation to New York City a reality
° My strong support of the proposed amendment to the
State Constitution which would make it possible to
tap state gasoline tax revenues for mass transit
purposes

° A vigorous national effort to free up the Federal
Highway Trust Fund so that states all over the
country can have greater flexibility to use such
revenues for the mis of highway and transit in-
vestments that they think best

° A limitation on the physical expansion of Logan

Airport without curtailing its central importance as
our only jetport, and an active MassPort program to
minimize the noise impact of Logan operations , and a
request that MassPort pursue a policy of compensation
for the unique pain and suffering that those commu-
nities adjacent to the airport experience in conse-
quence of Logan activities.

-40-

Finally, I wish to reemphasize my commitment to working
with our cities and towns in an open and cooperative manner
so that we can move forward in partnership toward the truly bal-
anced transportation system that we seek. Partnership is indeed
the keynote of what I am trying to achieve in transportation --
partnership between the state and the Federal Government; and above
all, partnership between the people and their government. I am
convinced that such partnership in transportation progress can be
achieved. Today's decisions are a major step in that direction.

-41-

CO
Q

:=>

U-,

PL,

E-i

-d

CO
Q

Oh
<

CD
H

CU P

•H bO

5 -H

•H

CD CU

•H

H K

0 0

p p

x) c

fa -H

rd (— i

•H

> fa

■H

fa <

Ph"

LO CO O
CN rH CN

o
x>

rd
CU
O,
I

6
cu

fa
o
p
—\ o

rd CU

>. O
i— I o
fa
CU

CU
CO

G
P

a
cu
G
G
o

X o
rd

fa XI
bO O
Ph rd X
D CU G
CO rd

bO
G
•H

fa
rd
Oh

CU c-i

CU fa CU

P CU X

73 > G

O CU O

CNJ O
rH O
H CN

CD
CN

G X
•H 3

+J
G co
O

•H fa

CO CU
G X)
CU G

p 3
w cu

•H

H
>

cu co

P
fa

bO O
C S
H

<D X Ph
6 G Oh
CD &h
PPO

fa X
(X CU o
6 C
M «H

H fa

rd CU

•H P

fa CU

CU X
P

fa CU

< X)

G 5^
O X
■H 3
P P

cu oo

P<P

6 co
o cu
o 5

r— 1

CNI

CNJ

•H

•H -H

XI CO

•H

CU fa

•H

bO O

i— i

G Pm

•H C

•H

3 o

fa O

•H

ct-h

O P

W P

■H

•H

CU P5

X >> K

ffi

X N

cu td

C -H

+-1 CO

rd a

•H ,C

6 P

O X

(1)

bOP (U

O O

c xi

H rd

rd O

CU PQ

■H

O Oh

H S

Ph"

O O

c
cu
S
cu
>
o
fa

(X
6

p
cu
cu
fa
p

•rH

p
fa

o
p

C
■H
^!

X
C

rd CD
C

CO «H
CO J
CU

O X

o cu

< Ph

o
o

O O O
O CN O
CN rH

6
cu
>
o
fa

bO
P O
£ fa

M Oh

bO
fa C
CU -H
P M

rd CU
fa bO

P
C

O Ph

rH
rH

rH LO

-co- -co-

o
o

CN
•CO-

LO
CN
=t
-CO-

P
CO
CU

P
fa

rd
C
•H

o
p

p
a

• 0)

CO •(—)
fa ^3
rd 73

rH CO

O CO
X CU
fa

CN 73
bO

CD -H
rH CM

C t0

o c

•H O
CO «H
C P
CU rd
P P
X CO
Q)

^x:

rH P

•• o

CD CO
X

73 X

rH C

rj m
c

•H £

p
6 fa
rd O
fa S
bO

O C
fa CD
(X CU

CO P
•rl CU

x: xi

•H
P
O

a)
c
c
o
a

•H

CO
P

to
o
a

rH Ch
rH Oh
<

■H
P
•H

X -H

rd -H
rd
CU fa

3 <

3 CN

cm w .
•«to

CU oo C

rH CN O
X3 rH-H

•H P
CO -H
to CU CO
O P-H

<j cr
« OO
•K P rd

PROGRAM OF CORRIDOR AND FRIN6E
PARKING RELATED TO RAPID TRANSIT,
COMMUTER RAIL LINES, EXPRESS BUS
SERVICE. (SITES TO BE DETERMINED)

NEW INTERSTATE HIGHWAY
FACILITIES

1-95

NEW OR IMPROVED NON- INTERSTATE
HIGHWAY OR ARTERIAL FACILITIES

DECISIONS ON REGIONAL
HIGHWAYS & ARTERIALS

rL_n_n

BTPR RESTUDY AREA o 1

2 3 4 5 MILES

liENFRAl PKfttRAM

1. COMMUTER RAIL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM,
INCLUDING ROLLING STOCK, RIGHT-OF
WAY, OPERATIONS, PARKING, ETC.

2. CORRIDOR AND FRINGE PARKING ALONG "
COMMUTER RAIL, RAPID TRANSIT LINESJ
EXPRESS BUS TERMINALS.

3. STATE ASSUMPTION OF 50X OF MBTA
NET COST OF SERVICE

H. PARKING FREEZE DOWNTOWN AND AT LOGAN
5. MANAGEMENT OF EXISTING HIGHWAYS
TO ENCOURAGE TRANSIT UTILIZATION

BEDFORL

EXTENSION OF RED LINE
FROM QUINCY TO ROUTE 12»
(REDESIGNATED 1-95)

T\ '

FRINGE PARKING RELATED TO

©COMMUTER RAIL, TRANSIT,
EXPRESS BUS OPERATIONS (SPE-
CIFIC SITES TO BE SELECTED
IN COORDINATION WITH TRAN-
SIT, HIGHWAY IMPLEMENTATION

__ NEW RAPID TRANSIT EXTENSIONS
■ III OR MAJOR UPGRADES TO EXISTING
LINES

COMMUTER RAIL IMPROVEMENTS

OTHER TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS

DECISIONS ON REGIONAL TRANSIT ^ N

n_n__n ( )

0 1 2 3 4 5 MILES V*-L-/

BTPR RESTUDY AREA

NORTHWEST REPORT

1 Volume

464 Pages

February, 1973

231 Figures

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

A. BTPR PROCESS

1. Origins of the BTPR

2. BTPR Study Region and Facilities

3 . The BTPR Study Approach

4. Purpose of the Phase II Reports

5. Report Organization

B. A FRAMEWORK FOR CHOICE
1. Governor's Policy

2. Special Legal Protection of Public Parklands

3 . Community Impact

4. Equity: Concept of Program Packages

5. Institutional Adaptability

1. Coordination of Highway and Transit Planning Operations

2. Moficiations of Transit Service and Assessment Programs

3. Special Compensatory Programs

4. Land Development Implementation

I. NORTHWEST CONTEXT

A. NORTHWEST TRANSPORTATION

1. Key Questions

2. Northwest Transportation Problems

1. Corridor Descriptions

2. Cambridge Radial Corridor

3. Arlington/Lexington Corridor

4. Watertown/Belmont/Waltham Corridor

5. Somerville Radial Corridor

6. Cambridge/Somerville Crosstown Corridor

7. Medf ord/Winchester/Woburn Corridor

Northwest Improvement Program Packages

■

B. NORTHWEST IN A REGIONAL CONTEXT: ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL, ECONOMIC,
AND TRANSPORTATION OVERVIEW

The Regional Environment
1. Urbanization and Open Space

Northwest Environment

1. Environmental Assets

2. Ecological Assets

3. Environmental Sensitivity

The Regional Economy

The Northwest Subregional Economy

1. Population

2 . Income

3. Housing

4. Employment

Projected Northwest Population, Employment and General
Travel Demands

1. Northwest Corridor Alternative Future Population and Employment

2. Estimated Travel

3. Transportation System Interrelationships
NORTHWEST TRANSIT

A. REGIONAL TRANSIT PLANNING STRATEGY

1. Plan Versus Planning

2 . Toward a New P licy

1. Institutional

2 . Operational

3. Developmental

4. Modal Integration

B. NORTHWEST TRANSIT DEFICIENCIES AND ISSUES

1. Public Transportation SERvice Today

1. Surface Bus

2. Light Rail

3. Rapid Transit

4. Commuter Rail

2. Demand for Public Transportation Service

3. Problems of Public Transportation Service

Fare Structure

Reliability

Frequency

Speed

Crowding

Comfort

7.
8.

Availability of Information
Transit Coverage and Linkage

4. Operating Costs and Revenues

C. TRANSIT TESTING SYSTEMS AND EVALUATION

1. Alternative Transit Systems for Testing

2. Evaluation of Transit Systems

1. Ridership

2. User Benefits

3. Net Cost

4. Capital Cost and Economic Rate of Return

3. Evaluation Summary and Conclusions

1. Red Line Extension

2. Green Line Extension

3. Suburban Services

D. TRANSIT IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS

1. Harvard-Alewif e Corridor

1. Harvard-Alewif e Segment: Northwest Extension of the Red Line

2. Green Line Extension from Lechmere to Alewife

3. Massachusetts Avenue Bus Capacity Increase

2 . Arlington/Lexington Corridor

1. Northwest Extension of the Red Line to Arlington or Route
128 in Lexington

2. Express and Local Bus Service to the Red Line

3. Upgrading of Bedford Branch Commuter Rail

3. Watertown/Belmont/Waltham Corridor

1. Fitchburg Division Commuter Rail Improvements

2. Express and Local Bus Service to the Red Line and Boston

4. Somerville Radial Corridor

1. Green Line Extension

2. Express and Local Bus Service to Rapid Transit and Boston

3. Commuter Rail Station in Somerville

4. Special Transfer Privileges to Rapid Transit from Somerville Bus

5. Cambridge/Somerville Crosstown and Circumferential Corridor

1. Crosstown Bus ServiceOptions

2 . Local Bus Service to the Red Line

3. Circumferential Transit Facility Options

6. Medf ord/Winchester/Woburn Corridor

1. New Hampshire Division Commuter Railroad Improvements

2. Express and Local Bus Service to Boston, the Red Line and
the Orange Line

E. SPECIAL MOBILITY AND COVERAGE TRANSIT

1. Analysis of Service Needs

1. Special Mobility Groups

2. Transportation Problems of Cambridge Elderly

2. Solutions for Special Mobility and Coverage Transit Problems

1. Bus Route Alterations

2. Transit "Coverage"Recommendations

3. Alterantive 3A-1 — Engineering Description and Drawings

4. Alternative 3A-2 — Engineering Description and Drawings

5. Alternative 3B-1 — Engineering Description and Drawings

6. Alterantive 3B-2 — Engineering Description

7. Alternative 3B-3

5. Alignments 4A and 4B — Davis Square Alignments Without Porter Square

1. General Description

2. Construction Methods

3. Alternatives

6. Construction Cost Estimates

C. ALEWIFE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS: ENGINEERING DESCRIPTION

1. Alternative 1 — Parkway Redesign (Minimum New Construction)

2. Alternative 2 — Parkway Redesign (Preferred Access for Specialized
Movements)

1. Alternative 2A

2. Alternative 2B

3. Maintenance of Traffic and Sequence of Traffic

4. Subsurface Conditions

5. Major Utilities Relocation

3. Alternative 3 — Combined Bypass/Transit Access

1. Alternative 3 Description

2. Maintenance of Traffic and Sequence of Construction

3. Subsurface Conditions

4. Major Utilities Relocation

5. Construction Cost Estimates

D. DETAILED IMPACTS AND EVALUATION

1. Description of Evaluation Criteria and Process

2. Capital Costs of Construction

3. Transportation Service and Costs

1. User Benefits

2. Transit Operating Costs

3. First Year Rate of Return

4. New Transit Ridership

5. Relief from Street Congestion

6. System Linkage

7. Mobility of Transit Dependent

4. Family Relocation and Replacement Housing

1 . Summary Evaluation

2. Inventory of Structures and Description of Households —
Porter Square

3. Inventory of Structures and Description of Households —
Davis Square .

4. Housing Market Characteristics and Relocation Needs

5 . Regional Economic Impact

1. Effects on Population Distribution

2. Effects on Employment

3. Impact of Construction Expenditures

6 . Community Economic Impact

1. Effects on Land Values and Local Tax Base

2. Impact on Existing Retail Centers

3. Business Displacement and Impact on Employment

4. Impact During Construction

5. Private Land Development Opportunities

7. General Landscape, Open Space and Historic Resource Impact

1. Present Transportation-Associated Impacts

2. Physical Alteration

3. Non-Conformity with Existing Environment

4. Physical Separation

5. Disruption of Access

6. Disruption of Ambient Environment

7. Access-Induced Development

8. Noise Impacts

1. Impact Measurement

2. Noise Standards

3. Noise Impact Forecast

4. Noise Minimization Procedures

9. Community Quality Impact

1. Impact on Facilities

2. Traffic Impact and Service Access

3. Visual and Aesthetic Impacts

4. Neighborhood Cohesion

10. Ecological Impacts

1. Harvard-Alewif e Extension Impacts

2. Alewife Transit Station Location Impacts

3. Alewife Road Improvement Impacts

4. Impacts of Extension Beyond Alewife

E E. DESCRIPTION OF 4(f) LANDS AND IMPACTS

1. Scope and Purpose of Section 4(f) Review

2. Lands Subject to 4(f) Review

3. Detailed Descriptions and Impacts

1. Rindge Field

2. Jefferson Park Housing

3. Russell Field

4. Fresh Pond Reservation

5. Alewife Brook Reservation

6. Alewife Brook and Fresh Pond Parkways

7. Thorndike Street Playground

8. Linwood Field (Scannel Field)

9. Spy Pond Field

10. Pond Lane Park and Totlot

11. Wittemore Historic Park

NORTHWEST PROGRAM PACKAGE SUMMARY

A. PROGRAM PACKAGE CRITERIA

1. Context of Program Package Policy Alternatives

2. Time and Staging Availability of Improvement Options

3. Alternative Futures and Land Use Policies

B. DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM PACKAGE POLICY ALTERNATIVES

1. Improvements Implementable within Five Years

2. Packages Implementable within Five to Ten Years

3. Packages Implementable in 10+ Years

C. SUMMARY EVALUATION OF PROGRAM PACKAGES

1. Effect of Program Packages on Mass Transit Service

2. Capital Costs of Alternative Program Packages

3. Effect of Program Packages on Land Use Policies and Alternative Futures

8. Evaluation: Service, Futures, Criteria

1. Alternative Transportation Service Approaches

2. Transportation and Alternative Shapes of the Future

3. Evaluation Criteria

C. SOUTHWEST IN A REGIONAL CONTEXT: ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL, ECONOMIC
AND TRANSPORTATION OVERVIEW

1. The REgional Environment

1. Urbanization and Open Space

2. Environmental Issues

2. Southwest Environment

1. Environmental Assets and Man-Made Problems

2. Ecological Assets

3. Environmental Sensitivity

3. The Regional Economy

4. The Southwest Subregional Economy

1 . Population

2. Housing

3 . Income

4. Employment

5. Occupational Structure

5. Projected Southwest Population, Employment and General Travel Demands

1. Southwest Corridor Alternative Future Population and Employment

2. Estimated Travel

D. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM INTERRELATIONSHIPS

1. Traffic Volumes, Diversions and Patterns

2. Alternative Futures and Induced Traffic

3. Modal Interrelationships and Parking Price

1-95 SOUTH/CENTRAL ARTERY TO ROUTE 128

A. Major Problems and Choices for 1-95 South

1. Summary Chronology of the Southwest Expressway Proposal

2. Highway Travel Problems in the Southwest

3. Major Issues Relating to 1-95 South

4. Description of Roadway Alternatives for 1-95 South

1. Alternative 1: Arterial Street

2. Alternatives 2A, 2B, 2C: Southwest Expressway

5. Alignment Options at Fowl Meadow

6. Western Inner Belt — Boston

1. Arterial Street Approach

2. Grade-Separated Expressway Approach

7. Relationship to Southeast Expressway Improvements

—

B. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

1. New Arterial Street — Forest. Hills to Massachusetts Avenue

2. Expressway Alternatives

3. Four-Lane Expressway with Rail/Transit in Median (Alternative 2A)

4. Four-Lane Expressway with Rail/Transit Adjacent (Alternative 2B)

5. Six-Lane Expressway with Rail Transit in Median

6. Construction Costs

III. SOUTHWEST TRANSIT

A. REGIONAL TRANSIT PLANNING STRATEGY

1. Plan Versus Planning

2. BTPR Policy Review

3. Toward a New Policy

1. Institutional

2 . Operational

3. Developmental

B. SOUTHWEST TRANSIT: DEFICIENCIES AND ISSUES

1. Public Transportation Service Today

1. Surface Bus

2. Light Rail

3. Rapid Transit

4. Commuter Rail

2. Demand for Public Transportation Service

3. Problems of Public Transportation Service

4. Operating Costs and Revenues

C. TRANSIT TESTING ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION

1. Transit Testing Alternatives and Evaluation

1. Technologies Tested

2. Technology and Operations Factors

2. Transit Packages for Evaluation

1. Description of Transit Packages

2. Evaluation of Preliminary Packages

3. Evaluation of Moderate and Maximum Versus Existing Transit Investment

1. Alternative Systems

2. Mode Split Analysis

3 . Time Savings

4. Summary and Evaluation Results

D. TRANSIT SERVICE OPTIONS

1. Transit Programs

2. The Penn Central Mainline Corridor

3 . The Replacement Corridor Options

4. The Circumferential Corridor

5. Transit Engineering Descriptions and Construction Sequences
E. SPECIAL MOBILITY AND COVERAGE TRANSIT

1. Analysis of Service Needs

2. Solutions for Special Mobility and Service Coverage Problems

IV. SOUTHWEST PROGRAM PACKAGES/ SUMMARY AND EVALUATION

A. PHYSICAL INTERRELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN HIGHWAY AND TRANSIT DECISIONS

1. Context of the Program Packages

2. Physical Relationship of Rail and Transit Service to Program Packages

B. LAND USE AND JOINT DEVELOPMENT

1. Introduction

2 . Land Use Context

3 . Land Use Options and Local Priorities

4. Land Development Opportunities with the Arterial Street Option

5. Joint Development Opportunities with the Highway Option

6. Legal/Administrative Issues Related to Joint Development Associated
With Both Expressway and Arterial Options

C. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES

Capital Costs of Construction

Transportation Service

Family Relocation and Replacement Housing

Regional Economics

Community Economic Impact

General Landscape, Open Space and Historic Resource Impact

Air Pollution Impact Analysis

Noise Impacts

Community Quality

10.

Ecological Impacts

V. DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION OF IMPACTS ON PUBLIC OPEN SPACE AND HISTORIC SITES
A. INTRODUCTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL INVENTORY

1. Introduction

2. Description of Environmental _nventory Method

3. Description of Environmental Zones

B. DESCRIPTION OF 4(f) LANDS AND IMPACTS INVOLVING DIRECT PROPERTY TAKING

1. Scope and Purpose of the Section 4(f) Review

2. Lands Subject to 4(f) Review

3. Detailed Descriptions and Impacts

C. DESCRIPTION OF OTHER IMPACTED PUBLIC OPEN SPACE AND HISTORIC SITES

1. Definition of Impacts

2. Identification of Sites Impacted

3. Detailed Descriptions and Impacts

SUMMARY REPORT
1-95 RELOCATED AND REVERE BEACH CONNECTOR

August, 1972

CONTENTS

Summary of Problems and Issues

Summary Description of Alternative Program Packages
Comparative Evaluation of Corridor and Facility Alternatives
Impact Summary by Alternative
Incidence of Costs and Benefits
Anticipated Short- and Long-Term Effects
Composite Table of Contents

32 Pages
14 Figures

NORTH SHORE REPORT

2 Volumes 700 Pages

July, 1972 500 Figures

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

I. NORTH SHORE CONTEXT

A. NORTH SHORE TRANSPORTATION CHOICES

1. Key Questions

2 . North Shore Transportation Problems

3. Alternative Improvement Programs

1. Alternative I — No Expressway

2. Alternative II — I-95/Route 1 Alignment

3. Alternative III — I-95/Lynn Woods Alignment

4. Transportation System Interrelationships

1. Highway Facility Interrelationship

2. Transit-Highway Interrelationship

B. A FRAMEWORK FOR CHOICE

1. Governor's Policy: Increased Role for Transit to Downtown Boston

2. Special Legal Protection of Public Parklands

3 . Community Impact

4. Equity: Concept of Program Packages

5. Institutional Adaptability

1. Coordination of Highway and Transit Planning Operations

2. Modification of Transit Service and Assessment Programs

3. Special Compensatory Programs

4. Land Development Implementation

6. Technological Feasibility

7. Fiscal Resources and Funding Limitations

8. Evaluation: Service, Futures, Criteria

1. Alternative Transportation Service Approaches

2. Transportation and Alternative Shapes of the Future

3. Evaluation Criteria

C. NORTH SHORE IN A REGIONAL CONTEXT

1. The Regional Environment

1. Urbanization and Open Space

2. Environmental Issues

2 . North Shore Environment

1. Environmental Assets

2. Ecological Assets

3. Environmental Sensitivity

3. The Regional Economy

4. The North Shore Economy

1. Population and Housing

2 . Income

3. Employment and Industry

4. Retail Sales

5. Projected North Shore Population, Employment and Travel Demands

1. North Shore Alternative Future Population and Employment

2 . Estimated Travel

1-95 NORTH/REVERE TO PEABODY

A. MAJOR PROBLEMS AND CHOICES FOR 1-95 NORTH

1. The Problem of North-South Travel

2. Major Issues Relating to 1-95 North

3. Description of Program Packages for 1-95 North Decision

1 . Alternative 1A

2. Alternative IB

3. Alternative 2

4. Alternative 3

5. Alternative 4

4. Corridor Descriptions

1 . The Route 1 Corridor

2 . The Lynn Woods Corridor

B. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

1. Route 1 Corridor Rebuild (Alternative 1A)

2. Route 1 Corridor Rebuild (Alternative IB)

3. Route 1 Corridor ByPass (Alternative 2)

4. Lynn Woods Corridor (Alternative 3)

5. Route 1 Upgrade (Alternative 4)

6. Construction Cost Estimates

C. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES

1. Capital Costs of Construction

2. Transportation Service

3. Housing Relocation

4. Regional Economics

5 . Community Economic Impact

6. General Landscape, Open Space and Historic Resource Impact

7. Air Pollution Impact Analysis

8. Noise Impact

9. Community Quality
10. Ecological Impacts

D. JOINT DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

1. Joint Development — Lynn Woods Corridor

1. Specific Joint Development Opportunities

2. Joint Development — Route 1 Corridor

1. Joint Development Objectives

2 . Improvement of Environmental Quality

3. Specific Joint Development Opportunities

3. Joint Development Planning and Implementation
1. Public and Private Participation

E. EVALUATION SUMMARY

1 . Summary of Alternatives Considered and Their Impacts

2. Comparative Evaluation of Cirrodir and Facility Descriptions

1. Should 1-95 North Be Build?

2. What are the Relative Advantages of the Lynn Woods
and Route 1 Corridors?

3. How do the Alternatives Within the Route 1 Corridor
Compare with One Another?

3. Incidence of Costs and Benefits

4. Unavoidable Effects, Remedial Measures, and Residual Impacts

F. DESCRIPTION OF 4(f) LANDS

1. Description of Environmental Inventory Method

2. Discussion of Impacts by Environmental Zone

3 . Route 1 Corridor Inventory

4. Lynn Woods Corridor

G. LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES

1. Acquisition of Land Under Article 39

2. Alternate Basis of Land Acquisition

3. Statutory Authority of the Department of Public Works to Acquire
Land and Other Property for Highway and Related Uses

4. Statutory Authority of the Department of Public Works to Dispose
of Land Not Needed for Highway Purposes

5. Potential Availability of Public Funds for a Land Cost Write Down

6. Site Development Costs

7. Construction of Buildings

8. Special Highway Design Features

9. Possible Additional Compensatory Programs
10. Implementation Issues: Next Steps

III. TRANSIT IN THE NORTH SHORE

A. REGIONAL TRANSIT PLANNING STRATEGY

1. Plan Versus Planning

2. BTPR Policy Review

3. Toward a New Policy

1. Institutional

2 . Operational

3. Developmental

B. NORTH SHORE TRANSIT: DEFICIENCIES AND ISSUES

1. Corridor Description

2 . Public Transportation Service Today

1. Commuter Railroad Service

2. Rapid Transit Service

3. Bus Transit Service

3. Demand for Public Transportation Service

4. Problems of Public Transportation Service

C. TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES

1. Screening the Alternatives

2. Alternatives for Evaluation

1. Upgraded Blue Line Rapid Transit

2. Upgraded Commuter Rail

3. Dual-Power Vehicle

4. Express Bus Service in the Route 1/1-95

3. Local Bus Service Improvements

1. New and Improved Bus Routes and Schedules

2. Fares

3 . Other Improvements

3. Alternatives for Further Investigation

D. EVALUATION OF TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES

1. Patronage, Revenue and Cost Estimates

2. Travel Time

3. Beneficiaries of Improvements and Significance of Linkage Improvements

4. Effect on Street Traffic

5. Flexibility and Adaptability

6. Feasibility

7. Transport Costs and Benefits

8.
9.

Regional Economic Impact
Community Economic Impact

10. Displacement

11. Community Quality

12 . Conservation/Recreation

13. Air Quality and Noise

14. Ecological Impacts

15. The Impact of Alternative Futures on Transit
E. SUMMARY OF TRANSIT FINDINGS

1. Institutional Changes

2 . Operational Improvements

3. Contingent Issues

4. Summary of Transit Alternative Evaluation

5. Evaluation Considerations

IV. 1-95 RELOCATED: EAST BOSTON TO REVERE
A. SUMMARY EVALUATION

1. Summary of Problems and Issues

1. Summary Chronology of 1-95 Relocated and Revere Beach
Connector Proposals

2. Major Transportation Problems and Conditions in Revere
and Chelsea

3. Major Issues Relating to 1-95 and the Revere Beach Connector

2. Summary Description of Alternative Program Packages

1. Location and Major Features of Alternative Corridors

2. Transit Components of the Alternative Program Packages

3. Highway Components of the Alternative Program Pakcages

4. Transportation Implications of Alternative Program Packages

3. Comparative Evaluation of Corridor and Facility

1. Should 1-95 Relocated and the Revere Beach Connector be Built?

2. What are the Relative Advantages of the Alternative Facilities
and Corridors?

4. Incidence of Costs and Benefits
1. Community Costs and Benefits

5. Anticipated Short-term and Long-term Effects

6. Summary of Conflicts with Section 4(f) Lands

7. Remedial Measures to Minimize Harm

Unavoidable Adverse Effects and Irreversible Commitments of Resources

COMMUNITY AND CORRIDOR DESCRIPTIONS

1. Environmental, Social, Economic, and Transportation Overview

1. Location and Transportation

2 . Environmental Context

3. Major Environmental Assets

4 . Social and Economic Context

5 . Transportation Context

2. Detailed Corridor Descriptions

1. Corridor A: Saugus Marsh/Revere Beach Connector

2. Corridor 3: Boston & Maine Right-of-Way From Oak Island
Park to East Boston Line

3. Corridor C: Mill Creek/Revere Beach Parkway

4. Corridor D: Northeast Expressway

5. Corridor E: MBTA Blue Line

DETAILED ENGINEERING DESCRIPTIONS

1. Introduction

2. Alternative 1

1. Typical Sections

2. Route Description

3. Construction Sequence and Maintenance of Traffic

4. Major Utilities

5. Subsurface Conditions

3. Alterantive 2

1. Typical Sections

2. Route Description

3. Construction Sequencing and Maintenance of Traffic,
Major Utilities, and Subsurface Conditions

4. Alternative 3

1. Typical Sections

2. Route Description

3. Construction Sequencing and Maintenace of Traffic,
Major Utilities, and Subsurface Conditions

5. Alternative 4

1. Typical Sections

2. Route Description

3. Construction Sequence and Maintenance of Traffic

4. Major Utilities

5. Subsurface Conditions

6. Alternative 5

1. Route Description

2. Construction Sequence and Maintenance of Traffic

3. Major Utilities and Subsurface Condition-

Alternative 6

1. Route Description

D. JOINT DEVELOPMENT

1. Scope and Purpose of Joint Development

1. Joint Development and the Principle of Equity

2. Joint Development and Section 4(f) Review Issues

3. Joint Development in Revere and Chelsea

2. Property Acquisition and Displacement

3. Saugus Marsh (Corridor A)

4. Boston & Maine Right-of-Way (Corridor B)

5. Mill Creek (Corridor C)

6. Northeast Expressway (Corridor D)

7. MBTA Blue Line (Corridor E)

8. Joint Development Planning and Implementation Issues

1. Public and Private Participation in Joint Development Planning
and Implementation

2. Recent State Legislation

E. DETAILED IMPACTS AND EVALUATION

1. Description of Evaluation Criteria and Process

2 . Capital Costs of Construction

3. Transportation Service

1. Benefits from Fixed Travel Patterns

2. Benefits from Induced Trips and Systems Effects

3. Safety

4. Rate of Return

5. Types of Trips Benefited, and Distribution by Community

6. Reduction of Traffic on Major Arterials and Local Streets

7 . Summary

4. Housing Relocation

5. Regional Economic Impacts

1. Effect on Employment Accessibility (Economic Opportunity)

2. Effect on Population Accessibility

3. Effect on Existing Businesses

6. Community Economic Impacts

1. Business Displacement

2. Impact on Local Employment/Payrolls

3. Land Value, Tax Base and Land Use Impacts

4. Impact During Construction Period

5. Private Development Opportunities

6. Impact of Transit Improvements

7. Summary of Community Economic Impacts

7. General Landscape, Open Space and Historic Resource Impact

1. Present Transportation-Associated Impacts

2. Physical Alteration

3. Nonconformity with Existing Environment

4. Physical Separation

5. Disruption of Access

6. Disruption of the Ambient Environment

7. Access-Induced Development

8. Summary Impact Charts

8. Air Pollution Impact Analysis

1. Air Quality Standards

2. Impact of Carbon Monoxide

3 . Impact of Nitrogen Dioxide

4 . Impact of Hydrocarbons

5. Summary of Facility Impacts

9. Noise Impacts

1. Impact Measurement

2. Summary of Major Findings

3. Critical Receptors

4. Potential Noise Minimization Devices

10. Community Quality

1. Impact on Community Facilities

2. Relief from Local Automobile and Truck Traffic

3. Visual and Aesthetic Impacts

4. Neighborhood Cohesion

11. Ecological Impacts

1. Combined Impacts to Salt Marsh, Plants, Wildlife

2. Impacts to Wetlands and Floodplains

3 . Impacts to Water Quality

4. Minimization of Ecological Impacts through Collection
and Dispersion of Runoff Waters

DESCRIPTION OF 4(f) LANDS AND IMPACTS

1. Scope and Purpose of the Section 4(f) Review

2. Description of the Environmental Inventory Method

3. 4(f) Conflicts in Environmental Zone 16

4. Pines River Detention Basin

5. Douglas and Bates Streets Playground

6 . Arcadia Street Playground

7. Sullivan Playground

8 . Paul Revere Park and Playground

9. Revere Beach Parkway/Cronin Rink

10. Slade Spice Mill

11. Clinton Street Recreation Area

12. Summary of Section 4(f) Issues by Alternative

GOODS MOVEMENT STUDY

22 Pages
1 Figure

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION
SCOPE OF ANALYSIS
BACKGROUND DATA

THE RANGE OF TRUCKING PROBLEMS
Congestion
Noise and Pollution
Safety

Land Use and Tax Base
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

Design Considerations

Trends
RANGE OF SOLUTIONS

Parking Regulations and Enforcement

Traffic Operations Improvements

Truck Routes, Truck Roads and Special Truck Lanes
Transit

Distribution Schedules
Distribution Facilities
ROLE OF BTPR

Remaining Work Program
Subsequent Reporting

(

A REVIEW OF RECOMMENDED HIGH SPEED GROUND AND
AIR TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS

May, 1972 10 Pages

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

RECOMMENDED GROUND TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS
Air Travel

Ground Access: Airport
Ground Access: Rail

Comparative Travel Times, MOdal Choice and Total Travel
BTPR ISSUES

MOBILITY PROBLEMS OF ELDERLY CAMBRIDGE RESIDENTS: SUMMARY

27 Pages
5 Figures

CONTENTS

Background to Study

I. Summary of Findings

II. Comparison of Elderly Population in

Cambridge to Elderly Respondents

III. Trip-Making Characteristics of Elderly

Respondents

IV. City-Wide Transportation Problems

V. Transportation Issues in West and

North Cambridge

VI. Transportation Issues in East Cambridge,

Donnelly Field, Central 4, and Mid Cambridge

VII. Transportation Issues in Cambridgeport and

Riverside

VIII. Conclusions and Recommendations for Action

IX. Appendices

I. Discussion Guide

II. Meeting Report Form

III. Questionnaire

SOUTHWEST SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT

80 Pages

February, 1973 45 Figures

I. A. INTRODUCTION

I.B. SOUTHWEST CORRIDOR REVIEW COMMITTEE

I.C. POLICY ASSUMPTIONS AND CONSTRAINTS

I.D. DEFINITION OF ALTERNATIVES FOR STUDY

I.E. SUMMARY FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

I I. A. BASIC OPTIONS IN THE MAIN LINE CORRIDOR

1. Issues and Assumptions

2 . The Alternatives

3. Noise Impacts for Main Line Transit Alternatives

4. Engineering

5. Impact Evaluation

6 . Summary

III. A. DETAILED DISCUSSION OF OPTIONS FOR THE SOUTH END AND ROXBURY/MATTAPAN
REPLACEMENT TRANSIT SERVICE

Appendix A OPTIONS DROPPED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION
Appendix B MAIN LINE RAILROAD AND TRANSIT TRACK REQUIREMENTS
Appendix C GREEN LINE OPERATIONS

To Be Printed

NORTHWEST ARTERIALS

February, 1973 15 Figures

CONTENTS

Introduction

The Western Connector

1-93 Access/Somerville

Cambridge Truck Problems and Alternative Solutions
Northwest Arterial Street Improvement Programs

To Be Printed

WINTHROP CONNECTOR EVALUATION REPORT

30 Pages

February, 197 3 10 Figures

CONTENTS

Introduction
Background
The Problem

Description and Evaluation of Alternatives
Conclusions and Next Steps

STUDY ELEMENT 2 SUMMARY REPORT

January, 1973 60 Pages

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

I. AN OVERVIEW OF S.E.2.

Organization

Initial Operations

The Results of Phase I

Phase II

The Hearings

The Resulting Decisions

II. NORTH SHORE
III. SOUTHWEST

IV.

COMMUTER RAIL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

AIR QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM

15 Pages

January, 1973

1 Figure

CONTENTS

1 . INTRODUCTION

2. MEASUREMENTS PROGRAM

3. SUMMARY OF MEASUREMENTS DATA

4. COMPARISON BETWEEN MEASURED AIR QUALITY AND AMBIENT STANDARDS

5. FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS AND DIRUNAL VARIABILITY OF GASEOUS POLLUTANTS

6. CORRELATION BETWEEN AIR QUALITY MEASUREMENTS AND METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS

7. CONCLUSIONS

STUDY ELEMENT 6 SUMMARY REPORT

December, 1972 128 Pages

14 Figures

CONTENTS

I. Introduction and Summary

II. Procedures for Establishing a Regional

Framework for Land Use and Travel Analyses

III. Procedures for Selecting and Adapting City

and Town Population and Employment Forecasts

IV. Procedures for Review of Travel Forecasts

Prepared Previously

V. Procedures for Network Development and Coding

VI. Procedures for Trip Generation and Distribution

VII. Procedures for Mode Split Analysis and

Forecasting

VIII. Procedures for Network Assignment

IX. Cross-Elasticity Model Investigations

X. Appendices

A. List of Study Element 6 Memoranda

B. List of References for Study Element 6
Material in BTPR Published Reports

C. Basic Socio-Economic Data for Study
Element 6 by City and Town

THE SALEM/PEABODY ROUTE 128 ARTERIAL CONNECTOR

December, 1972 14 Pages

3 Figures

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

THE PROBLEM

ALTERNATIVES STUDIED

PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION

Use of Original DPW-Designed Connector Right-of-Way
Vinnin Square/Swampscott Road/ Summit Street
Bridge Street Bypass/Dan vers River/Waters River

DESCRIPTION OF SALEM/PEABODY/ROUTE 128 ARTERIAL
Conclusion

REGIONAL SYSTEMS

November, 1972 57 Pages

23 Figures

CONTENTS

BACKGROUND

Highway Planning Before the Planning Review
Transit Planning Before the Planning Review

BASIC PROBLEMS WITH EXPRESSWAYS AND THE PLANNING REVIEW

The Planning Review and Rethinking Regional Transit Strategy

REGIONAL SYSTEMS FORMULATION AND TESTING
Study Design Approaches
Phase I Systems Approach
Phase II Systems Modification

PHASE II SYSTEMS TESTING

System Effects in Alternative Facility Combinations
Effects of Alternatives of Local Street Traffic

Induced Travel from Systems Combinations and Improved Level of Service
Intermodal Competition

Relationships Between Parking Policy and Modal Usage
Systems Testing Conclusions

AGGREGATE IMPACTS — POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE

DOWNTOWN BOSTON TRAVEL — THE KEY PROBLEM

REGIONAL AND CORE PARKING STRATEGY

REGIONAL TRANSIT POLICY AND SUBREGIONAL IMPLICATIONS

Toward a New Transit Policy

Subregional Transit Improvement Programs

Priorities

Future Directions

REGIONAL HIGHWAY STRATEGY

MANAGEMENT APPROACH

The Rationales for Traffic Management

The Need for Infrastructure

Southwest Expressway Management Strategy

SOCIAL BENEFIT/COST EVALUATION

November, 1972 74 Pages

6 Figures

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

EVALUATION FRAMEWORK DEVELOPED BY THE BTPR
The Fifty Criteria

TRANSPORTATION SERVICE

Benefits from Induced Trips and Systems Effects

Types of Trips Benefitted and Distribution by Community

Accessibility to Employment

Reduction of Traffic on Major Arterials and Local Streets
Housing Relocation

REGIONAL ECONOMICS

Employment Distribution
Employment Accessibility
Goods Movement and Commerce

COMMUNITY ECONOMIC IMPACT
Business Displacement
Special Problems
Impact on Local Employment
Tax Impact

Tax Loss Impact to Date
Acquisition Cost of Build Alternatives
Tax Impact of Build Alternatives
Impact on Existing Retail Centers
Impacts During the Construction Period
Private Land Development Opportunities
Highway Alternatives
Arterial Alternatives

GENERAL LANDSCAPE, OPEN SPACE AND HISTORIC RESOURCE IMPACT

AIR POLLUTION IMPACT ANALYSIS

NOISE IMPACTS

COMMUNITY QUALITY

ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS

SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION

Scope and Purpose of Section 4(f) Review
Lands Subject to 4(f) Review
Detailed Descriptions and Impacts
Indurect 4(f) Impacts

JOINT DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION

TRANSIT EVALUATION — SERVICE
Ridership
Travel Time
Net Cost

Schedule Efficiency
Net Benefit

Capital Cost and Economic Rate of Return

Evaluation of Moderate and Maximum Versus Existing Investment
Mode Split Analysis
Time Savings

Summary and Evaluation Results

TRANSIT EVALUATION

Effect on Street Traffic
Flexibility and Adaptability
Feasibility

Regional Economic Impact

Community Economic Impacts

Community Quality

Effect on Population Distribution

Effects on Employment

Conservation/Recreation

Air Quality and Noise

EVALUATION SUMMARY

r i

CENTRAL ARTERY REPORT

86 Pages

November, 1972

53 Figures

CONTENTS

A. CONTEXT AND DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
Background Summary

Major Transportation Problems and Conditions
Harbor Crossing Context

Description of Central Artery Improvement Alternatives
Summary Evaluation

B. TRANSPORTATAON IMPLICATIONS

Effects of Other Regional Transportation Improvements on Central Artery

C. CORRIDOR CONTEXT AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS

Corridor Description

Social and Economic Overview

Economic Opportunities of a Depressed Central Artery
Economic Impacts of Central Artery Improvements

D. JOINT DEVELOPMENT
Scope and Purpose

Land Use Planning Context and Objectives
Alternative A: Viaduct Improvements
Alternative B: Widen and Depress the Artery
Planning and Implementation Issues

E. DETAILED ENGINEERING DESCRIPTIONS
Scope and Purpose

Alternative A: Viaduct Improvements
Alternative B: Widen and Depress ARtery
Maintenance of Traffic and Staged Constrf uction
North to South Station Rail Connection
North Terminal Area Studies

REGIONAL FRAMEWORK

^ 4- i~ -, 72 Pages

October, 1972

45 Figures

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

A. Goal Formulation — Assumptions and Evaluation

B. Regional Transportation Service Improvement Approaches — Evaluation

C. Alternative Land Use Futures: Evaluation

D. Issues of the Environment

E. Issues of the Economu

F. Issues of Equity

CIRCUMFERENTIAL REPORT

October, 1972 122 Pages

40 Figures

A. INTRODUCTION

1 . Purpose of the Report

2. Concept of Transit Circumferential

3. Organization and Limitations on Scope of Work

B. SERVICE AREA DEFINITION AND INVENTORY

1. Service Area Definition and Description

2. Potential Ridership Demand Categories

3 . Corridor Inventory

C. TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

1. Initial Range of Technological and Alignment Alternatives Considered

2. ^Design Constraints

3. Description and Discussion of Proposed Alternatives
D . PERSONAL RAPID TRANSIT

1. Technological Considerations

2. Engineering and Costing Analysis

3. Staging Possibilities

4. Institutional and Funding Ouestions

E. EVALUATION OF DEMAND FOR CORE DISTRIBUTION

1. Subarea Analysis of Distribution Demand

2. Analysis of Alignment Options by Segment

F* NETWORK ANALYSIS AND LONGER TERM PLANNING

1. Description of Networks

2. Network Performance

3. Network Impacts of Core Distribution Improvement

4. Regional Distribution of User Benefits

G. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Summary Conclusions

2 . Elements for Future Work Program

SOUTHWEST SUMMARY REPORT

43 Pages
19 Figures

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION

1. Background of the Southwest Expressway

2 . Purpose of the Summary

2. SUMMARY OF PROBLEMS AND ISSUES

1. Major Questions and BTPR Findings in the Southwest Corridor

2. Existing Transportation Problems

3. TRANSPORTATION CHOICES

1. Program Packages

2. Highway and Local Street Choices

3. Transit Choices

4. Physical and Institutional Relationships Between Highway/
Arterial and Transit Options

4. SUMMARY TRANSPORTATION SERVICE EVALUATION

1. Highway and Local Street Service

2. Transit Service

3. Relationships between Highway and Transit

5. COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF I-95S CHOICES

1. Summary of Impacts

2. Incidence of Costs and Benefits to Communities

3. Summary Evaluation of Fowl Meadow Choices

4. Unavoidable Effects, Remedial Measures and Residual Impacts

October, 1972

HARBOR CROSSING SUMMARY

October, 1972 23 Pages

22 Figures

CONTENTS

FORWARDING LETTER
FRAMEWORK FOR CHOICE
PROBLEMS AND ISSUES

PROGRAM PACKAGE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENTS
ALTERNATIVE PROGRAM PACKAGES

COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF CORRIDOR AND FACILITY ALTERNATIVES
PHOTOGRAPHS OF ALIGNMENTS
SUMMARY CHRONOLOGY
CONTENTS OF FULL REPORT

COMMUTER RAIL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

September, 1972 250 Pages

7 Figures

CONTENTS

Conclusions and Recommendations
Chapter 1, Introduction and Summary
Chapter 2, Organization
Chapter 3, Ridership

Chapter 4, Service and Route Characteristics

(Includes sector maps and charts describing existing services)
Chapter 5, Service Standards
Chapter 6, Capital Program
Chapter 7, Fare Structure

Chapter 8, Economic and Social Considerations and Evaluation
Appendix I, Extensions of Service

Appendix II, Bibliography of the Principal Previous Reports Relating to the

Commuter Railroad Operations
Appendix III, Equipment

Appendix IV, MBTA-B&M and SEPTA-Reading contracts relating to Service Stctnuards

Appendix V, Quantifiable System Benefit Analysis

THIRD HARBOR CROSSING REPORT

1 Volume 341 Pages

September, 1972 253 Figures

CONTENTS

A. BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY EVALUATION

1. Framework for Choice

2. Summary Chronology

3. Problems and Issues

4. Program Package Transportatron Elements

5. Alternative Program Packages

6. Transportation Implications of Alternative Program Packages

7. Legal and Financial Issues of a New Harbor Crossing

8. Comparative Evaluation of Corridor and Facility Alternatives

9. Summary of Conflicts with Section 4(f) Lands

10. Remedial Measures to Minimize Harm and Unavoidable Adverse Effects

B. DETAILED CORRIDOR AND FACILITY DESCRIPTIONS

1. Corridor Descriptions

2 . Social and Economic Overview

3. Logan Airport

4. Facility Descriptions

C. JOINT DEVELOPMENT

1 . Scope and Purpose of Joint Development

2. East Boston and Logan Airport Joint Development Concepts

3. South Boston and Central Artery Joint Development Concepts

4. Joint Development Cost Summary

5. Joint Development Planning and Implementation Issues

D. DETAILED IMPACTS AND EVALUATION

1. Description of Evaluation Criteria and Process

2. Capital Costs of Constructron

3 . Transportataon Service

4. Family Relocation and Replacement Housing

5. Regional Economic Impacts

6. Local Economic Impacts

7. General Landscape, Open Space and Historic Resource Impact

8. Air Pollution Impacts

9. Noise Impacts

10. Community Quality

11. Ecological Impacts

DESCRIPTION OF 4(f) LANDS AND IMPACTS

1. Scope and Purpose of Sectaon 4(f) Review

2. Description of Environmental Inventory Method

3 . East Boston Recreation Area (Stadium)

IMPACTS ON PUBLIC PARKS, RECREATION AREAS, AND HISTORIC SITES

1. Definition of Impacts

2. John Cheverus Elementary School Yard

3. Daniel Webster School Yard

4. Jeffries Point Park

5. South Boston Naval Station Recreation Area

6. West Third Street Playground

7 . Buckley Playground

8. Saints Peter and Paul's Church

9. Summary Alternatives

DETAILED ENGINEERING DRAWINGS AND DESCRIPTIONS

1. Scope and Purpose of Chapter

2. Construction Cost Estimation

3. Engineering Description of Alternative Alignments in South Boston

4. Engineering Description of Tunnel Alignments in Zone TC3

5. Engineering Description of Alternative Alignments in East Boston
Zones TC4 and TC5

6. Bridge Crossing for Boston Inner Harbor

7. Central Artery — Depress and Widen

SOUTHWEST REPORT

1 Volume
September, 1972

631 Pages
454 Figures

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

S. SUMMARY AND EVALUATION

1. Introduction

2. Summary of Problems and Issues

3. The Transportation Choices

4. Summary Transportataon Service Evaluation

5. Comparative Evaluation of I-95S Choices

I. SOUTHWEST CONTEXT

A. SOUTHWEST TRANSPORTATION CHOICES: AN OVERVIEW

1. Key Questions

2. Southwest Transportation Problems

3. Alternative Improvement Packages

1. Highway Alternatives

2. Transit Alternatives

3. Interrelationship of Highway and Transit Alternatives

B. A FRAMEWORK FOR CHOICE

Governor's Policy: Increased Role for Transit to Downtown Boston

Special Legal Protection of Public Parklands — The National
Environmental Policy act and Section 4 (f )

Community Impact

Equity: Concept of Program Packages
Institutional Adaptability

1. Coordination of Highway and Transit Planning Operations

2. Modification of Transit Service and Assessment Programs

3. Special Compensatory Programs

4. Land Development Implementation

3.
4.
5.

6.
7.

Technological Feasibility

Fiscal Resources and Funding Limitations

nil

* DATE

May 2, 1972

May 9, 1972

May 16, 1972

May 24, 1972

June 1, 1972

June 6, 1972

June 13, 1972

June 20, 1972

June 26, 1972

July 11, 1972

July 18, 1972

July 25, 1972

August 8, 1972
August 15, 1972

August 29, 1972

September 5, 1972

September 12, 1972

September 19, 1972

September 26, 1972

October 3, 1972

October 10, 1972

October 17, 1972

October 24, 1972

November 14, 1972

December 5, 1972

January 16, 1973

AUTHOR

Solomonof f

Buckley

Oliver
Oliver

Oliver

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Texts

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Boston transportation planning review : final study, summary report"

See other formats